NAVAL

POSTGRADUATE
SCHOOL
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

THESIS

INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS:

GOVERNANCE AND RISK

by

Michael J. Aspland

December 2009

Thesis Advisor: Richard Bergin

Second Reader: Jeffrey Munks

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection
of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215
Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction
Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
December 2009 Master’s Thesis
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Interoperable Communications Systems: 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Governance and Risk
6. AUTHOR(S) Michael J. Aspland
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER
Monterey, CA 93943-5000
9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the
official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited A
13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words)
This thesis explores how shared governance mitigates risk related to multi-agency, multi-discipline
interoperable radio communications projects. Case study research focused on two California counties,
Marin and Monterey, to discover how shared governance emerged to mitigate financial, managerial and
discipline risk. The significance of this research identifies the elements of shared governance that can lead
to the successful implementation of interoperable radio communications projects. Findings indicate that
shared governance emerges over time and is influenced by existing professional relationships. Meta-
leaders are individuals take the sum of their professional experience (roles) and use that experience to
facilitate shared need and common understanding between all participants. Finally, public safety tradition
and culture will impact the development of shared governance solutions and can inhibit or facilitate shared
governance solutions.
14. SUBJECT TERMS Interoperable communications; multi-discipline, multi-jurisdictional 15. NUMBER OF
radio communications; risk and governance; shared governance; policy and consensus PAGES
teams, Monterey Police Department. 92
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF
CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT
REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UU
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

i
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ii
 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS: GOVERNANCE AND

RISK

Michael J. Aspland
Deputy Police Chief, Monterey Police Department
B.A. Sociology, Westmont College 1986
M.A. Public Administration, California Lutheran University 1993

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN SECURITY STUDIES

(HOMELAND SECURITY AND DEFENSE)

from the

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

December 2009

Author: Michael J. Aspland

Approved by: Richard Bergin

Thesis Advisor

Jeffrey Munks
Second Reader

Harold A. Trinkunas, PhD

Chairman, Department of National Security Affairs

iii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

iv
 ABSTRACT

This thesis explores how shared governance mitigates risk related to

multi-agency, multi-discipline interoperable radio communications projects. Case
study research focused on two California counties, Marin and Monterey, to
discover how shared governance emerged to mitigate financial, managerial and
discipline risk. The significance of this research identifies the elements of shared
governance that can lead to the successful implementation of interoperable radio
communications projects. Findings indicate that shared governance emerges
over time and is influenced by existing professional relationships. Meta-leaders
are individuals take the sum of their professional experience (roles) and use that
experience to facilitate shared need and common understanding between all
participants. Finally, public safety tradition and culture will impact the
development of shared governance solutions and can inhibit or facilitate shared
governance solutions..

v
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS: GOVERNANCE

AND RISK ....................................................................................................... 1
A. PROBLEM STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1
B. RESEARCH QUESTION ...................................................................... 3
C. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 3
D. SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................... 6
II. LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................... 7
A. SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 7
B. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE LITERATURE ..................................... 9
1. Literature from Professional Organizations .......................... 9
2. Strategic Plans and Legal Agreements ................................ 10
C. SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ........................................................ 11
1. Uncertainty and Risk ............................................................. 11
2. Finance and Risk ................................................................... 12
3. Technology and Risk ............................................................. 15
4. Social Complexity and Emotion ........................................... 16
4. Social Amplification and Risk ............................................... 18
5. Relationships ......................................................................... 19
6. Leadership and Mentoring .................................................... 20
7 Problem Solving Strategies .................................................. 21
D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ....................................................... 22
III. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 25
A. METHODOLOGY—CASE STUDY..................................................... 25
B. SAMPLE POPULATION .................................................................... 25
C. DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ............................................ 26
D. ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 26
IV. ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 29
A. (HOW) DEVELOP SHARED GOVERNANCE .................................... 30
1. Roles ....................................................................................... 30
2. Disciplines .............................................................................. 32
3. Leadership .............................................................................. 33
B. (HOW) RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................ 35
1. Emergence.............................................................................. 36
2. Conflict Management............................................................. 39
3. Cultural Forces....................................................................... 44
4. Governance ............................................................................ 48
C. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 54
V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 55
A. (HOW) DEVELOPING SHARED GOVERNANCE ............................. 55
1. Roles ....................................................................................... 55
vii
 2. Disciplines .............................................................................. 58
3. Leadership .............................................................................. 59
B. (HOW) RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................ 61
1. Emergence.............................................................................. 61
2. Conflict Management............................................................. 63
3. Cultural and Traditional Forces ............................................ 65
4. Governance ............................................................................ 67
C. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 69
LIST OF REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 71
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST ................................................................................. 75

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Risk Mitigation Chart (After Van Staveren, 2006) ............................... 14

Figure 2. The Social Amplification of Risk Framework (From Leiss, 2003)........ 18
Figure 3. Interoperability Formula (Johnson, 2009) ........................................... 19

ix
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Participant Roll ................................................................................... 30

Table 2. Discipline Impact ................................................................................ 32
Table 3. Governance Leaders .......................................................................... 33
Table 4. Unanticipated Issues .......................................................................... 36
Table 5. Conflict Management .......................................................................... 40
Table 6. Impact of Culture and Tradition .......................................................... 44
Table 7. Governance Structure Support ........................................................... 49

xi
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I extend my thanks to the city of Monterey for sponsoring my participation

in this program. I also acknowledge and thank the members of the Monterey
County Next Generation Radio Project and the county of Marin representatives
for their insights and trust. I am grateful to and recognize my advisor, Richard
Bergin, for his patience and guidance over the last 18 months. Most importantly, I
am grateful for the support of my wife, Marjorie, during the weeks spent away
from home, the hours typing papers and all the distance learning homework.

xiii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xiv
 I. INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS:
GOVERNANCE AND RISK

A. PROBLEM STATEMENT

In December 2004, the Federal Communications Commission required

that all state and local public safety agencies narrowband all voice and data radio
frequencies no later than the year 2013 (National Institute of Justice, 2008).
Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) SAFECOM
communications program established interoperability requirements that must be
met by all public safety agencies in order to qualify for a variety of Federal grant
programs (SAFECOM, 2008). The stipulations of the narrow banded radio
frequency requirement and interoperable communications guidelines require that
public safety agencies invest substantial amounts of money in new radio
technologies and to create cooperative, multi-agency governance agreements to
achieve interoperability.

The current situation is one in which numerous, disparate radio systems

that are not interoperable exist side-by-side. These radio systems are used as
part of comprehensive public services to include first responders (police, fire and
emergency services) and infrastructure support (public works—streets, water
systems or public buildings). Public service jurisdictions sharing common borders
often operate independent radio systems on entirely different infrastructures and
cannot communicate. Additionally, these systems can be outdated and require a
complete redesign and build to achieve narrowbanded, interoperable radio
systems. This requires public safety groups to join together to leverage funding
sources, management experience and develop requests for proposals for new
systems including standard operating procedures, use agreements and shared
governance.

Interoperability is dependent of the development on shared governance

models for these new radio systems. It requires state, county and local
1
government organizations with competing priorities to set aside cultural and
organizational differences to implement a common communications platform.
Communication needs differ among public service disciplines (i.e., public works,
police and fire) and require the design of radio communications systems that
meet the needs of each group. The challenge is to bring together a variety of
public service disciplines that compete for scarce resources of time,
management capacity and finances under a common governance structure. This
shared governance must address who owns the infrastructure, who decides the
functionality of a new radio system, how is it maintained and managed into the
future and how it is paid for.

Achieving interoperability is considerably less expensive for public service

jurisdictions working collaboratively rather than individual jurisdictions building
their own independent systems. Independent systems may result in the
acquisition of a variety of hardware and software solutions that may not be
interoperable with neighboring jurisdictions. The failure to establish shared
governance will undermine any efforts toward interoperability since there will be
no anchor point to sustain changes over the long term.

Shared governance is a critical element of interoperability. There are,

however, risks associated with a shared governance model for multi-jurisdiction,
multi-discipline interoperable radio communications projects. Risk is defined as
identifying the uncertainties of facts, values, finance or culture requiring an
iterative process to bring stakeholders together to identify and manage the risks
of any project (Slovic, 2002). Financial risk can include determining how much
each participating agency is responsible to pay for the infrastructure and
maintenance of a system that will be in use for decades. Managerial risk can
result in the loss of sole authority to determine standard operating procedures,
training requirements and making changes to the overall system to best fit the
individual agency needs. Discipline risk can require specific groups, such as fire
and police professionals, to accept a communications system that might not
directly benefit them in functionality or increased safety.
2
 Interoperable radio technology is a changing landscape that requires
participating public safety organizations to give up some level of control for the
benefit of the larger group. As a result, the risks associated with the development
of inter-organizational governance solutions that require consensus between
competing public service organizations are often not well understood and can
affect the success of interoperable communications system development. The
challenge is to be able to identify and mitigate the risks associated with
implementing multi-jurisdiction, multi-discipline interoperable radio
communications projects.

B. RESEARCH QUESTION

How do intra-organizational teams develop shared governance structures

that mitigate risk associated with multi-agency, multi-discipline interoperable
radio communications projects?

The research question will explore how team characteristics and

composition affect the governance of multi-agency, multi-discipline radio
communications projects. Shared governance is the foundation for mitigating
financial, managerial and discipline risk in these types of projects.

C. ARGUMENT

The successful completion of interoperable, multi-agency communication

projects requires the development of a governance structure that becomes the
foundation to set the vision, strategic initiatives and goals for the entire project.
The SAFECOM (2008) Interoperability Continuum identifies five critical elements
that include governance, standard operating procedures, technology, training and
exercises, and usage. Governance is the most critical of these five elements and
sets the framework through which participants can collaborate, set short term
and intermediate priorities, and resolve conflicts. It is only after governance is
established that the remaining elements of the continuum can be completed.

3
 Without a governance structure in place, critical parts of interoperability
projects may not be completed or projects may be delayed. For example,
interoperable, multi-agency projects require that cities, special districts and
legislative government bodies enter into legally binding finance agreements
before any other part of the project can proceed. If there is no financing
agreement in place, vendors will likely not bid on subsequent Request for
Proposal releases. If there is no shared governance model in place for the
project, making financing decisions could become unclear or muddled, resulting
in lawsuits and a failed project even before it gets started.

Financial risk can exist on two distinct fronts. The first risk is how to pay
for a new system that requires a substantial up front cost to numerous
government entities with varied fiscal resources. Infrastructure and one-time
project costs may be paid for using bonds, taxes, fees for service or private
financing options. Each type of funding option results in a variety of risk to each
participating jurisdiction depending on their financial stability. Finding consensus
for a shared funding plan, agreed to by all participating jurisdictions, brings with it
the risk of failing to pay for the entire communications system. The second risk is
failing to develop a fee for service agreement that provides payment for on going
maintenance and support costs for the communications system. As with one-time
expenses, there are a number of possible cost sharing formulas that require all
participating jurisdictions to agree on. Failing to achieve consensus in either of
these areas of financial risk can increase the cost for individual jurisdictions.

Managerial risk is a second element that impacts each agency joining an

interoperable radio project. Every special district, municipality and county
government participating in these projects may not share the same view of
supervision and management oversight. They are likely to have a variety of
strategic plans, visions, goals and master plans that might conflict. Managerial
risk exists when there are expectations of individual stakeholders in multi-
jurisdictional projects such as interoperable radio systems. A shared governance

4
structure must define how voting and participation of large and small government
is structured to reduce the managerial risk associated with reduced decision-
making power as part of a collaborative group.

Discipline risk is tied to the variety of public service disciplines

participating in interoperable radio projects. Law enforcement, fire, public works,
information technology, radio technology, legal, policy and management are all
disciplines that have influence in these types on projects. Each discipline brings a
perspective that must be incorporated for the successful deployment of any
interoperable radio system. Discipline-specific input is required to ensure the
elements of the SAFECOM continuum are maintained at the most efficient and
effective levels.

The nature of the problem is to anticipate elements of risk in the context of

shared governance and to develop and implement strategies that eliminate or
significantly reduce risk factors. Problems can emerge if a governance structure
is not in place prior to the development of finical agreements, SOP’s, the
selection of technology solutions or training. Risk factors can include the failure
to build associations with project members that are both task oriented and
emotionally based. The blending of these relational elements into a shared
governance model can be characterized as social complexity (Conklin, 2008).

Social complexity can exist in any single project where the participants are
also connected to other teams or networks of individual stakeholders,
committees, organizations, and departments that must buy in to proposed
solutions (Conklin, 2008). Social complexity issues may impact the effectiveness
of intra-organizational teams and are elements of risk that can affect the overall
success of interoperable communications projects. Complexity issues can
negatively impact intra-organizational, interoperable communication project and
pose a previously unidentified risk factors. These risk factors can be minimized or
eliminated if governance is addressed early in these projects.

5
D. SIGNIFICANCE

The purpose of this thesis is to conduct case study research and compare
it to existing literature to determine how to mitigate the risk in the development
and function of governance solutions for multi-agency, multi-jurisdiction
interoperable radio projects. The two case studies for this thesis are based on
original research from participant interviews, the review of multi-jurisdictional
agreements and the researcher’s perspective as a participant observer. The
significance of this research will be to identify and provide best practices for
mitigating risks associated with governance solutions that are not typically
considered in the development of interoperable, multi-jurisdictional
communications systems. The potential consumers of this research include
public safety professionals who participate in intra-organizational groups for
interoperable communications project. The best practices and lessons learned
may provide guidance to better achieve success in these projects.

6
 II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. SUMMARY

The body of literature in total provides insight to guide government

collaboration to complete multi-jurisdiction, multi-discipline interoperable radio
communications projects. These sources include how to measure the
effectiveness of projects through government strategy documents and how to
develop legal agreements between multiple agencies and frameworks to build
overall governance agreements for these systems. Additionally, the literature
provides a basis to identify risk in the context of shared governance.

Overall, the literature supported two layers of oversight that shared

governance in multi-jurisdiction, multi-discipline interoperable communications
projects should have. The first are executive oversight teams responsible for
creating a legal structure under which formal decisions are made (911 Insight,
2006). These teams are responsible for approving, for example, a budget or
policy manual. Legal instruments such as a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA),
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or similar agreements are specific
examples of executive oversight documents. These legally binding documents
are approved by the executive committee that is generally made up of
department executives such as police chiefs and city and county Chief Executive
Officer’s.

The second element for achieving shared governance for interoperable

communications projects are the creation of consensus teams from
representatives of all participating organizations and departments. Consensus
teams work together to develop elements of the project such as procedures,
strategies and system design. Documents that support consensus can include
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), finance related documents (billing
methods) and training manuals. Consensus teams complete the majority of the
detail work for the policy groups acting as the final approvers for all participants.
7
 The creation of legal agreements and procedure manuals are central to
developing shared governance of multi-jurisdiction, multi-discipline interoperable
communications projects. It is just as important to understand how individual
behavior influences the development of shared governance. Executive
committees and consensus teams are made up of individuals who represent a
variety of disciplines, government types and departments. Each participant
competes for his/her own needs that are discipline or agency specific. It is critical
to understand how team characteristics, public safety culture and composition
might impact the development of shared governance.

This review is divided into sections that describe how shared governance
models for interoperable radio communication projects develop. The focus of
research is to identify how shared governance is impacted by financial risk,
managerial risk and discipline risk. Each type of risk can be viewed as a trigger
requiring a response to mitigate the impact on shared governance.

Part one of the literature review covers government strategy documents.

These documents support the development of multi-jurisdictional agreements for
interoperable radio projects. These sources include government strategy
documents, publications by public safety professional associations, as well as
memorandums of understanding and strategic plans from existing interoperable
systems. Part two examines literature that addresses elements of shared
governance that are not always part of legal agreements, SOP or training
documents. This literature source includes a discussion of uncertainty, risk, team
characteristics and leadership as it relates to the function of consensus teams.

There is a lack of literature that is specific to how to mitigate risk as it

relates to the function of executive oversight teams and consensus teams in a
shared governance structure for interoperable radio communications projects.
Published research on governance risk mitigation is limited and generally
focused on private industry projects that involve businesses to working together
to make profit. What is also lacking is a comprehensive discussion of how

8
financial, managerial and discipline risk can affect the overall shared governance
of a multi-jurisdiction, multi-discipline public safety interoperable communications
system.

B. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE LITERATURE

The Department of Homeland Security developed the Interoperability

Continuum as a basis to measure a region’s interoperability. The Continuum is
designed as a guide for public service organizations pursuing interoperability
solutions to solve changing communications needs (Department of Homeland
Security, 2008). The continuum identifies five areas to measure the success
interoperability efforts that include: governance, standard operating procedures
(SOP), technology, training and exercises and usage. Governance is the
foundation on which stakeholders make strategic decisions and achieve shared
goals. The importance of governance is reflected in state strategy documents as
well (SAFECOM, 2005). The literature recognizes that interoperability requires
the cooperation of all agencies, special districts and departments that function in
the same geographical environment. Projects can only move forward when
government organizations at all levels commit to finding a common solution to
manage interoperability. Governance thus becomes the foundation for any
interoperable system.

1. Literature from Professional Organizations

Two organizations that provide a comprehensive selection of literature for

understanding the challenges associated with interoperable communication
systems include SEARCH: The National Consortium of Justice Information and
Statistics and Department of Homeland Security SAFECOM program
(SAFECOM, 2008). These organizations offer examples of guidelines, strategies
and academic studies for achieving interoperable systems. The literature
provides solutions to solve information exchange problems that exist between
disparate communications and data management systems. The focus of this

9
literature is oriented toward a macro view of interoperable projects. Professional
magazines and journals provide perspectives on current events and insights into
specific public safety communications projects. Case studies generally focus on
statewide lessons learned and discipline specific reports. There is little
information on developing governance models that are related to consensus
teams and how governance risk is mitigated through their work.

2. Strategic Plans and Legal Agreements

Strategic plans for guiding the development of interoperable systems

might be considered foundational documents for developing governance
agreements. For example, a review of the Monterey County Operational Area
Emergency Communications System Strategic Plan identifies specific technical
areas to achieve a long-term solution to the countywide communications system
(911 Insight, 2006). One observation of the summary is that there is no mention
of developing governance as an overall goal. The challenge of research will be to
identify what the risk to developing a successfully deployed interoperable radio
project is if disparate participants fail to include governance as a guiding
document for every strategic planning process or memorandum of
understanding.

Joint Powers Agreements (JPA) and Memorandums of Understandings

(MOU) are two types of legally binging agreements used in interoperable radio
projects. These documents are typically vetted by risk managers, public safety
executives, city and county chief executive officers and attorneys. These
documents typically provide a basis for making executive leadership decisions
that potentially impact the entire project, identify system requirements and
establish cost sharing agreements for ongoing costs and infrastructure
improvements. This literature does not typically reflect how organizational
culture, individual agendas or what levels of risk public safety officials are willing
to accept based on financial resources. They are foundational to interoperable
radio projects and can provide an understanding to the formal structure of multi-

10
jurisdictional multi-discipline projects. They do not typically reflect how the
cultures of participating agencies might impact overall governance of
interoperable radio projects.

C. SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH

1. Uncertainty and Risk

The implementation of multi-jurisdiction, multi-discipline interoperable

communications project requires an understanding of how human relationships
and interactions influence planning, implementation, and long-term project
success. This is one area of literature that is rarely addressed as part of
developing shared governance for interoperable communications projects.
Finding consensus for all elements of a project of this magnitude begins with a
number of uncertainties that must be defined in the context of risk. Once risk is
identified, mitigation strategies can be developed to reduce the impact of risk on
interoperable radio projects (Slovic, 2000, p. 234).

The early stages of the development of many interoperable radio system

and shared governance solutions might be described as a wicked problem.
Wicked problems are by their very nature so convoluted that there is no clear
agreement on how they are defined or how to solve them (ScienceDaily, 2007).
Fragmentation is an outcome of a wicked problem where individuals are more
divided than untied. Information and knowledge is scattered among participants
and individual, rather than collective, solutions are in competition. Fragmentation
exists as uncertainty when participants hold to assumptions believed to be
understood by all stakeholders (Conklin, 2008). Understanding how social
complexity and fragmentation can negatively influence creating an interoperable
system is not likely to be considered or incorporated into a strategic plan, MOU
or RFP.

Once uncertainty is known, it can be mitigated as risk. Uncertainties about

facts, values, finance or culture require an iterative process to bring stakeholders
11
together to identify and manage the risks of any project. Perceptions of executive
oversight and consensus team members can undermine the successful
application of any technology no matter where is it used. Researchers have not
developed a comprehensive theory that answers the question of why major
technological advances are unsuccessful due to the identification of minor risks
or risk events that become negative public problems on a massive scale (Slovic,
2002). Research dating back to the 1980’s recognizes that understanding the
complex network of direct and indirect effects on risk is difficult due to the
transdisciplinary nature of solving problems (Slovic, 2002). Compounding the
challenge of successfully implementing technology projects is the lack of a
comprehensive theory to integrate a technical analysis of risk with the cultural,
social and individual response structures that shape the public experience of risk
(Slovic, 2002).

The identification of risk factors occurs when consensus teams determine

how projects will change the working environment for each participating agency
and discipline. Risk management for interoperable radio projects should expand
beyond how any specific technology impacts any specific public safety disciplines
to include how finance agreements and shared governance strategies affect
overall project management. Specific to this thesis is the reality that the
stipulations of the narrow banded radio frequency requirements and
interoperable communications guidelines require that all stake holders must
invest substantial amounts of human resources to create cooperative, multi-
agency relationships to achieve interoperability. The result is the development of
common governance that will work to leverage funding sources, management
experience and develop collective requests for proposals for new systems.

2. Finance and Risk

Literature linking governance, finance and risk is primarily focused on

private industry and less on public administration. Dallas (2004) wrote
extensively on evaluating the shared governance structures of private

12
corporations in the context of risk as part of developing investment strategies. In
Risk and Governance, Dallas describes how a financial downturn in Europe was
tied to the lack of a shared, multi-corporate governance agreement for
conducting business. Businesses and corporations engaged in mutually
beneficial business agreements with no shared governance to guide productivity
and growth. Eventually individual corporate decision making without input from
other businesses led to failures that negatively impact the broader financial
markets. As a result of these failures, investment strategies began to include an
evaluation of shared governance as part of the risk assessment of investment
strategies.

Fight (2006) suggests that risk related to finance is subjective based on

the financial characteristics of project participants. One potential fragmentation
element can be tied to what one party defines as a manageable financial strategy
will be unacceptable to another. Fight recognizes that social factors, including the
influence of trade unions, can potentially impact the development of the financial
element of a public project. He recommends two strategies to reduce financial
fragmentations in multi-participant projects. The first is the completion of
feasibility studies that include project goals, anticipated outcomes and alternative
financing models. These studies allow participating agencies to analyze the fiscal
impact of the project prior to committing fiscal resources. Second is due diligence
tied to identifying and managing the financial risk in any project. This process
includes gathering perspectives from legal, technical, political and subject matter
experts.

Van Staveren (2006) examined how financial risk can impact construction
projects specifically related to unknown ground conditions. The nexus to a multi-
discipline, multi-jurisdiction interoperable radio projects is best understood when
one considers that infrastructure costs can be unknown as a radio project is
designed. Engineers and planners do not know how much hardware is required
to build a system to the functional objectives identified by users. How many
physical sites are needed to support the project? What is the cost to lease or
13
purchase sites for radio towers and support equipment? Van Staveren suggests
that each risk can be managed based on widely accepted principles of risk
allocation. Negotiation to determine who owns the risk is a key part of mitigation.
Van Staveren proposed the following chart to demonstrate his concept of the
levels of shared risk (see Figure 1).

Client
assumes full
risk.

Client and
Contractor Contractor
assumes full Who wants to share risk
risk. own this risk? equally.

Client and
contractor
share risk
based on
percentage.

Figure 1. Risk Mitigation Chart (After Van Staveren, 2006)

The diagram shows four possible risk allocation scenarios where every
risk is explicitly owed by one participant, shared in part or divided equally. While
this model is used for ground-related risk for construction projects, it can be
easily applied to risks that include performance, outside influences, changes in
law and competing expectations across multiple organizations.

Literature sources on finance and risk suggests that the key to developing
acceptable values and cost sharing for multi-agency projects is through a

14
common governance structure. The structure can be achieved through mutual
agreements or contractual obligation. The lesson for developing shared
governance for interoperable communications projects is to understand the
importance of relying on consensus teams that provide a forum for sharing
concerns and ideas that result in cooperative and inclusive resolutions for finance
related issues.

3. Technology and Risk

Professional journals are one literature source for understanding how

governance risk can be mitigated when vetting potential technology risk issues in
public safety communications projects. For example, public safety users,
specifically in the fire discipline, initially resisted the transition from analog to
digital radio technology improvements because of a shortcoming of digital radio
transmissions in high noise environment. Luna (2009) wrote in Urgent
Communications magazine that radio vendors were moving forward to engineer
digital radio technologies into communications systems assuming that the
shortcoming high noise transmission failures would be solved as the technology
evolved. This revelation created significant push back from public safety
professionals who believed that the risk of injury or death would result from digital
radio “upgrades”. Luna recommended that public safety professional
organizations, such as the International Association of Fire Chiefs, should reach
out to vendors to work in cooperation to solve these types of problems. In turn,
vendors must be willing to cater to the needs of the various public safety and
public service agencies to develop best practices to mitigate emerging radio
technology shortcomings.

Risk associated with technology it typically defined in the context of the

value of the technology itself Slovic (2000, p. 234). wrote that members of
industrial societies must face the reality that the benefits of technology must be
paid for with both money and lives. Economists continue to debate the value of a
human life additionally the valuation debate plays out in wrongful death civil

15
cases across the Untied States today. This is a difficult problem that is
compounded in public safety professions. Law and fire practitioners are hesitant
to acknowledge that the transition to new technologies will likely have play a role
in the injury or death of public safety professionals. Policy makers, in turn, must
make benefit versus risk decisions related to technology enterprises.

4. Social Complexity and Emotion

The process of developing and implementing a common governance

structure for any interoperable radio project requires an ongoing assessment of
risk beyond how new radio technologies might improve or detract from the safety
of public safety professionals. In addition to end users, there are for example;
executive managers, risk managers, finance officers, attorneys and information
technology professionals. These stakeholders add to the financial, managerial
and discipline risks associated with shared governance of interoperable radio
projects.

Dr. Jeff Conklin (2008) in Wicked Problems and Social Complexity stated
that collaboration is a natural outcome where collective intelligence is part of
socially shared cognition. However, in any multi-organizational multi-discipline
project there are forces that inhibit collaboration driven by social complexity.
Social complexity is defined by the reality that executive oversight teams and
consensus teams are part of a social network. The network participants bring
their own languages to define core concepts of projects. They have competing
interests for project outcomes specific to their discipline. They may directly
benefit from the project or be peripheral to it. Conklin found that the resulting
fragmentation is accepted by project participants as inevitable with little effort to
mitigate the negative impacts.

Emotions also compound the successful implementation of new

technology and add another element of fragmentation to multi-jurisdictional
projects. Slovic et al. (2002) examined how affect guides judgments and decision
making. Affect is defined as, “the specific quality of ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ (i)
16
experienced as a feeling state (with or without consciousness) and (ii)
demarcating a positive or negative quality of a stimulus” (Slovis, 2002).
Specifically, Slovic identified an inverse relationship between the perceived risk
and the perceived benefit of using technology was linked to the strength of
positive (or negative) affect associated with it. Feelings can have a significant
impact on decision making. Studies referenced in Slovic’s work demonstrated
how affective memory influences investment decisions even when financial
evidence points to more lucrative outcomes.

An example of the role of emotion specific to interoperable radio projects

is found in the fire fighting profession. There was a perceived technology flaw in
next generation, digital, hand held radios used by first responders. Hand held
radios failed to transmit in high noise environments similar to working in a fire
engulfed building. Digital radio technology was found to be a contributing factor in
the on duty death of a number of firefighters. The initial reaction was for
firefighters to rally against the use of digital technology because of the increase
risk to fire fighter safety. Blogs and articles in trade journals began to appear
decrying the use of digital technology and demanding the use of older, analog
technology.1

Slovic’s findings are supported in professional journal literature. Magnuson

and Rusling (2009) in National Defense magazine cites Slovic’s work and
suggest that homeland security decisions can be based on emotion in political
policy development. They suggest that the events of 9–11 created an
atmosphere where feelings and gut instincts drove policy decisions. Emotional
reactions might be described as knee jerks to significant events. They can,
however; have significant impacts on delaying the deployment of interoperable
radio projects.

There is a gap in the literature addressing how social complexity and

emotion fit into the development of a shared governance structure for an

1 An example of a blog that is focused on this issue can be viewed at

http://blog.tcomeng.com/index.php/2008/firefighters-distrust-of-digital-radio-system-grows/.
17
 interoperable radio project. This research thesis will provide additional insight into
how these risk factors affect intra-organizational coordination. Case study
research for this thesis will examine how risk tied to wicked problems, social
complexity and emotion can be mitigated though a discourse between various
stakeholders and a clear picture of a project can emerge.

4. Social Amplification and Risk

Leiss (2003) completed research on the social amplification of risk that

provides a foundation for developing strategies to manage perceived risk. While
this work was not specific to interoperable radio communication projects, his
insights are applicable to these types of projects. Leiss described a framework to
explain how risk is amplified in the context of information sources, channels,
societal filters and institutional or social behaviors (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The Social Amplification of Risk Framework (From Leiss, 2003)

In the context of interoperable radio projects, this framework is helpful in

providing opportunities to anticipate how social impacts, such as the perception
18
that digital radio technology will put public safety practitioners at a higher levels
of overall risk as opposed to existing technology, might amplify the actual risk
associated with the emerging technology.

5. Relationships

Johnson (2009) developed an interoperability formula to measure the

effectiveness of interoperable communications projects (see Figure 3).

I=(2P+2T)xR

I—Effective Interoperability

P—Planning

P—Policy (or governance)

T—Training

T—Technology

R—Relationship.

Figure 3. Interoperability Formula (Johnson, 2009)

The formula is not intended to be a mathematical equation, but expresses

one view of the variety of factors that can impact the success of an
interoperability project. Johnson suggests that governance agreements should
be completed at the front end of any interoperable project. Governance includes
memorandums of understanding or standard operating procedures that are
critical for resolving problems that occur at any point of a project. He also
includes relationships as a critical element of achieving success in interoperable

19
projects. The article includes a “snapshot” survey that identifies funding as the
most significant challenge for interoperable projects. Interestingly, funding is not
part of Johnson'
s formula (2009).

Johnson (2009) views relationships as a force multiplier for interoperability

projects. Relationships might be considered a soft element these types of
projects, however; relationships can mean the difference between the successful
implementation of a system and a project delayed by unresolved governance risk
factors.

6. Leadership and Mentoring

Marcus, Dorn and Henderson (2005) suggested that the participation of

meta-leaders is one strategy for mitigating risk. They defined a meta-leader as an
individual that can influence and build a collaboration of effort beyond their own
organization. These leaders are skilled in bridging differences between
jurisdictional boundaries, a variety of agencies or departments and gaps between
public and private service. Meta-leaders are able to mitigate risk because they
build consensus between individuals and groups that do not share the same
strategic initiatives or goals. The ability to create relationships, provide guidance
and create momentum across a variety of disciplines minimizes risk factors when
they occur in the course of multi-jurisdictional, multi-discipline projects.

Meta-leadership requires the ability to shift between interpersonal skills

and leading a group. Snowden and Boone (2007, p. 5) build on this idea of meta-
leadership writing that adept leaders understand the context in where they are
working. These leaders have the flexibility to change leadership behaviors and
how decisions are made in the context of large groups where rank may not have
the same positional power as part of a specific organization. In addition to the
skill of leading in multi-jurisdictional, multi-discipline projects, these leaders

20
prepare their departments for structural changes in business practices and
policies that reflect regional solutions rather than department specific goal
achievement.

One bi-product that naturally emerges from a meta-leadership perspective

is mentoring. Mentoring can be expanded beyond traditional one on one counsel
to the guidance and development of the larger group. Lichtenstein, Uhl Bien,
Marion, Seers, Orton, and Schreiber, (2006, p. 3) write that this focus on broader,
complex groups requires the leader to think beyond their particular discipline and
adapt multi-discipline projects to meet the needs of other groups. The meta-
mentor must transcend the individual view that the individual organization drives
any project and expand the aggregate perspective to include multiple
organizations, strategic initiatives and goals.

7 Problem Solving Strategies

There are examples in literature for public safety professions that guide
decision making through an iterative process. Community policing theory
recommends the SARA problem-solving model to address quality of life issues in
neighborhoods (Aspland, 1996). SARA is an acronym that stands for Scanning,
Analysis, Response and Assessment. The process serves as a guide to
determine the type of issues that exist (Scanning), to identify the factors that
created the issues (Analysis), to develop a plan to address the issue (Response)
and finally to evaluate the success of the response and make adjustments as
needed (Assessment). This model can be applied to many different types of
problems including mitigating risk in most problem types.

Slovic (2000) recommends, specific to hazard management, that the more

scientific and lay perspectives that are applied to a problem, the greater the
likelihood of achieving a positive outcome for developing a solution. The reality is
that no single discipline has the “answer” to complex problem solving projects.
This view may also apply to governance solutions for managing technology.

21
D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The literature offers foundational insight to develop risk mitigation

strategies of shared governance structures for multi-jurisdictional multi-discipline
interoperable radio communication projects. Literature suggests that participants
understand the culture, expectations and level of knowledge for each jurisdiction
and discipline. Government strategy documents, MOU’s and RFP documents are
the critical legal documents that support these projects, however; these
agreements do not reduce issues of fragmentation. Social complexity studies
provide understanding on how to transition the uncertainty of wicked problems to
identified risks in the development of a shared governance structure.

The literature suggests that relationships are a key element to mitigating

risk in large scale communications projects. As projects progress, leaders will
emerge who can transcend jurisdictions and disciplines. These meta-leaders
provide a basis for facilitating change, overcoming objections and leading others
to a cooperative solution for multi-discipline multi-jurisdictional projects.
Additionally, understanding how risk can be amplified to benefit shortsighted
political or professional biases reduces the ability for a minority to undermine a
multi-discipline project. Finally, utilization of proven problem solving models in
public safety disciplines can also be used as a foundation for responding to
identified risks even if those risks emerge later in a project.

What is missing in the literature is a nexus between private and public

governance models. Private industry is building evaluation tools to minimize risk
in governance and financial agreements that require cooperation between
different corporations, companies and businesses. Multi-discipline, multi-
jurisdictional projects in a shared government setting are less likely to incorporate
these types of tools. Individual jurisdictions and disciplines are more likely to
focus on technology issues and behave myopically seeking to preserve their own
goals and initiative rather than working toward what is best for the group. The

22
literature is not focused to guide meta-leaders through the development and
implementation of multi-agency, multi-discipline radio technology projects.

This oversight to incorporate governance is common for communication

projects as interoperability goals create a system of systems where software or
infrastructure link existing systems rather than bringing them together (Hawkins,
2008). Creating a comprehensive governance structure can result in mitigation
strategies that reduce financial, managerial and discipline risk. Overall the body
of literature provides insight as to how shared governance for interoperable
communication systems might be achieved. This thesis will compare two case
studies against literature and identify common threads for mitigating risk
associated with shared governance of multi-jurisdictional multi-discipline
communications projects.

23
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

24
 III. METHODOLOGY

A. METHODOLOGY—CASE STUDY

Research for this thesis focused on how risk factors associated with
financing, managerial decision making and the needs of specific disciplines
impact shared governance models that are specific to interoperable
communications projects. The outcome of this research identified common
strategies and recommendations to understand and mitigate the risks associated
with shared governance models used in interoperable communications projects.
Specifically, case studies were used to understand the factors influencing
consensus teams and how responding to these factors can mitigate the risks
associated with shared governance models.

There is lack of research that links factors influencing consensus in a

shared governance model used to manage interoperable radio communication
projects. Specifically, there is little social science research explores how
consensus teams manage risk for multi-jurisdictional multi-discipline
communications projects in a shared governance environment. Yin (2009)
defines the case study research method as an empirical inquiry to investigate a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context. The case study method is
appropriate when research is centered on how and why questions and does not
require control of behavioral events. Additionally, a case study is helpful when
the boundaries between context and phenomenon are not clear and multiple
sources of evidence are used.

B. SAMPLE POPULATION

For this project the case study method was used to study two multi-
jurisdictional, multi-discipline interoperable radio projects in two California
counties, Monterey and Marin. Both counties have a shared a governance
solution in place for their respective radio projects.
25
 Marin County deployed an interoperable radio system over nine years
ago. The governance structure has representation of all stakeholders for
managing the interoperable radio system. The leadership group is now working
to address access and capacity issues resulting from too many users accessing
the radio system. The Marin County case provides an opportunity to gain an
understanding of how risk factors influencing consensus operate within
established shared governance models to manage interoperable radio system
upgrades with changing performance demands.

Monterey County is focused on replacing the existing voice and data radio
communications system and is currently reviewing responses to a Request for
Proposal process. Project participants include all cities located within Monterey
County, the county and special districts. The Monterey County case study
provides an opportunity to better understand risk factors influencing consensus in
the development of finance strategies and governance agreements and how they
impact planning and implementation of a replacement interoperable radio
system.

C. DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY

The data collection methodology included interviews of senior public

safety professionals who are currently participating in the development of
governance structures for interoperable radio communications projects. Interview
participants represent public safety (police and fire), critical support (information
technology) and executive management (government CEO’s). The interviewees
hold executive level or CEO positions in public safety, support services, and
third-party consultant services. Data collection included a review of the formal
documents (MOU’s and JPA’s) that form the legal foundation for these projects.

D. ANALYSIS

Open coding of the interview data was used to identify common threads
that influence consensus in interoperable radio communication projects. The
26
threads the emerged from the open coding were compared with legal documents
to determine if the formal agreements support or detract from consensus team
behaviors. Open coding, interviewer notes and comparative analysis of legal
documents provided insights into how inter-organizational teams and legal
agreements influence financial, managerial and discipline risk within
interoperable communication radio communications governance models.

27
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

28
 IV. ANALYSIS

The analysis is based on information gathered from five interviews

representing private industry and government participants in the Monterey
County and Marin County interoperable radio communications projects.
Participants were asked a series of seven questions in an open response format
with follow up questions for clarification of answers. The focus of the questions
were designed to reveal the “how” of developing shared governance solutions
and the “how” of managing the fiscal, managerial and discipline risks associated
with shared governance models. The “how” of developing shared governance is
presented in the context of roles, disciplines and leadership. The “how” of
managing risk is presented in the context of emergence, conflict management,
cultural forces and shared governance structures. Interview questions were
designed to explore sub-components of the main research question: How do
intra-organizational teams develop shared governance structures that mitigate
risk associated with multi-agency, multi-discipline interoperable radio
communications projects?

Open coding was used to identify common themes within the interview
data. Each participant was assigned a number of one though five to maintain
confidentiality and are referenced in Column One in the tables below. Column
two identifies the themes that emerged from each interview. Column Three lists
specific interview responses to support the themes listed in Column Two.

The analysis of interview data is grouped into two categories (Develop

Shared Governance and Risk Management) as defined in the main research
question. Develop shared governance focuses on the factors that shape the
emergence of meta-leadership, management practices and facilitating change in
the context of multi-discipline, multi-jurisdictional radio communications projects
that require finding consensus between participants. Risk Management focuses

29
on how shared governance functions to mitigate risk associated with fiscal,
management and discipline issues that can potentially impact radio
communications projects.

A. (HOW) DEVELOP SHARED GOVERNANCE

The development of shared governance solutions emerges from individual

roles, disciplines and leadership. Participant roles are described in the context of
specific jobs as well as individual, task oriented skills. For example, interviewees
reported that the role and commitment of executive managers is critical to the
success of shared governance projects. Specifically, executive managers have
the positional authority to require subordinates to cooperate and be productive
members of consensus teams. Discipline influences are oriented around subject
matter expertise. Middle managers and practitioners provide specific insight
related to the functional needs and objectives of any interoperable radio project.
Leadership is significant to both consensus and policy teams. Interviewees
detailed how leadership influenced the development of a shared governance
solution from across all jurisdictions and disciplines. The common element of
leadership was the presence of meta-leadership skills and abilities to see past a specific
professional expertise and provide input that was relevant to the project as a whole.

1. Roles

What was your role in the development of the governance structure for
this project? See Table 1.

Table 1. Participant Roll

Participant Role Comments

Number
1 Visionary The ability to see and understand how
regulations, system shortcomings and
existing culture must change to achieve
future goals and system requirements.

30
Participant Role Comments
Number
1, 4, 5 Subject Matter Expert Participants provided insight to others related
to specific knowledge (i.e., technology, public
safety culture issues) that was not known by
other participants.

1, 3 Futurist Recognized how narrowbanding

requirements would impact radio frequency
use over the long term.

Assist others to develop a “long view” of the

project.

“Rather than meet a short term deliverable,

we are able to focus one or two years down
the line.”

2, 3, 5 Facilitator Acted on information gathered from informal

conversations to start the evaluation and
change process.

Worked as part of a team to reach out to

individual department heads to better
understand the specifics of the project.

1, 2, 5 Collaborator Leveraged past relationships in other projects

to build a consensus team for the
interoperable radio project.

2 Comprehension “I need to demonstrate I understand your

issue.”

1, 2 Communicator Assist others to understand the complexity

and scope of the project.

3 Focus Recognize that although players change, the

project should always consider the needs of
the user over the needs of an individual and
keep all participants oriented to user driven
solutions

4 Trouble Shooter “We solve problems.” Individuals with subject

matter expertise worked together on
operations committees.

31
 2. Disciplines

Which public safety discipline (police, fire, communications, etc.) had the
greatest impact on the development of the governance structure and why? See
Table 2.

Table 2. Discipline Impact

Participant Discipline with Comments

Number greatest impact
1, 5 City and County “It takes (executive managers) telling people
Executive Administrators we are in this together.” They facilitate
understanding that participants will not get
everything they want for a specific discipline.

2 Law Law professionals are trained to work

independently. This culture leads to a level of
unwillingness to see other participant’s points
of view.

2 Fire and Law Executives They struggled with understanding a strategic

view of all jurisdictions and disciplines and
what all users needed in a shared
governance solution. They also did not have
the authority to commit to regional solutions
without consulting their CEO’s.

2, 3, 5 Existing Governance The interoperable communications system is

Teams “their baby”. It is their project and if they are
not involved from the beginning, it will not
succeed.

Conversely, the structure and participants did

not facilitate balanced decision making as low
percentage jurisdictions had the positional
power to over rule or ignore needs of larger
capacity jurisdictions.

“The (policy team) commissioned a strategic

plan, out of this came a recommendation to
modify process and make frequencies more
efficient.”

1, 3 Information Technology They were the provider of communications

services and underwrote the cost of radio
technology services. “There was a core
relationship between IT and users based on
32
Participant Discipline with Comments
Number greatest impact
fees for service and what customers get for
it.” Their influence on the finance aspect of
the project was significant as the imbalance
of participating agencies would be required to
pay for the level of service they were
receiving.

3 Fire “Fire is much more cooperative because of

mutual aid relationships.”

4 Public Works Their leadership was closely tied to all other

disciplines and jurisdictions and facilitated
communication.

3. Leadership

Who were the leaders that emerged in the development of the

governance? See Table 3.

Table 3. Governance Leaders

Participant Discipline with Comments

Number greatest impact
1, 3 Public Administrative The individual represents the Chief
Executive Officer Administrative Officer for the county
government. This person, “was respected,
intelligent and articulate. They had a role with
lots of the players.”

“Spearheaded by one individual—If he goes

away it creates a leadership vacuum that is
unknown if someone would be able to step
into the role.”

2 Public Works Executive The individual leveraged significant events to

initiate a complete replacement of an over
used system and had the personal motivation
to make things equitable between user
agencies. This executive, “worked for the
chiefs for 29 years.” The executive was
trusted.

33
Participant Discipline with Comments
Number greatest impact
2, 3 City Managers They were the key to radio system change
because their support brought the right
people to the table. They were also the key to
selling the finance element of the project to
the policy boards (i.e., city councils)

2 Consultants Facilitated building common understanding of

issues facing all jurisdictions and disciplines.
They were issue specific and subject matter
experts. (Issue specific: strategic planning,
technology acquisition) They identified issues
requiring shared governance solutions.

3 Information IT was administering communications

Technologies Executive technology and resources. One manager,
Leaders and Mangers “recognized the reality of the radio
replacement issues and brought it up the
chain of command in IT.”

3, 5 Existing Shared This group stepped forward to fill the

Governance Teams leadership gap as the radio technology needs
morphed into a multi-discipline, multi-agency
project. “It prevented the need to create a
separate JPA because they represented the
authority and the end users.”

One shared governance team endorsed the

collaborative process of the consensus
groups. Members of these shared
governance teams participated on consensus
teams and had the background when making
policy decisions. “It would be difficult for a
sub groups (consensus teams) to pull the
wool over the groups (policy teams) eyes.”

3 Users Their needs stay consistent over time and are

a critical part of identifying radio system
needs. Shared governance allowed for the
voice of supervisors and line staff to
communicate their needs and concerns on
consensus teams.
4, 5 Police and Fire Mid- One fire participant was known to other
Manager jurisdiction and discipline stake holders and
had two levels of subject matter expertise
related to radio technology and the fire
discipline. “It is the relationships that you
build in the non-emergency environment.”

34
Participant Discipline with Comments
Number greatest impact

One participant was a member of the fire

discipline and one from the police discipline
had the ability to grasp the technology issues
and were willing to be mentored by others
partnering on consensus teams from a
different jurisdiction or discipline.

B. (HOW) RISK MANAGEMENT

All of the interviewees reported that the mitigation of fiscal, managerial

and jurisdictional risk in a shared governance environment takes time. The
elements of emergence, conflict management, cultural forces and governance
can all detract from or support collaborative responses to risk issues in multi-
discipline, multi-jurisdictional radio communications projects. Emergence was
defined as the process where individuals participating in policy and consensus
teams begin to norm into a cohesive group. A culture within shared governance
exists distinct from the jurisdictions and professions of the members. Conflict
Management was described as a process that resulted from the emergence of
policy and consensus teams. Conflict resolution was the result of spending time
together and working through details, no matter how tedious, for the purpose of
resolving risk and conflict issues. This process was present throughout the life of
each shared governance solution of a radio communications project. Cultural
forces are those beliefs, mores, expertise and understanding specific to
jurisdictions and disciplines. Interviewees described how these forces impacted
the shared governance process. For example, fire discipline members use
common tactics and the same type of equipment in every fire station. This culture
of standardization makes it easier for fire professionals to understand the
concept of interoperability in a radio communications system. Governance was
defined by one interviewee in one word—wrangler. A wrangler worked to bring all
jurisdictions, disciplines, and individuals together for the common purpose of
developing and implementing an interoperable radio communications project.
35
Shared governance was the result of bringing disparate and conflicting views of
participants together to create a common reference point to built shared vision
and goals to implement the project.

1. Emergence

What were unanticipated issues that the governance structure was required to

address? See Table 4.

Table 4. Unanticipated Issues

Participant Unanticipated Issue Comments

Number
1, 5 Lack of Formal “It sounded like we stumbled into a
Governance that led to collaborative process for the radio
consensus. communications project. It started a collegial
discussion and sort of gelled and it did not
have a lot of governance and I am surprised
it has worked as long as it had without
governance. We left these meetings with a
high level of consensus and understood that
there were other people not in the room that
we had to have their consensus as well.”

“The unplanned outcome was that we sent

hours and hours in different groups
addressing different element that in doing the
little thinks, we created large pieces of
governance with little push back from policy
groups.”

1, 4, 5 Not knowing your talent. “You are stuck with whoever shows up when
you use a consensus show up if you want to
model. Regardless who shows up, the
conclusions have to be palatable to the
broader constituency and somehow we knew
that going in.”

The technical and managerial skill level was

unknown between jurisdictions and
disciplines. There was no effort to measure
individual participant’s skill sets.

“For a long time, any time we had a change

of players we had to start over at ground
zero. They had no understanding of the
36
Participant Unanticipated Issue Comments
Number
technical aspect or scope of the projects.
They were not interested. They were place
fillers.”

1 Lack of participation by “When we felt decisions being made that

specific jurisdictions. were not being made in the best interest of
one or more groups we would say wait a
minute.”

1 Losing key players in the This happened because of retirement,

project. reassignments and changing agencies. One
challenge was to absorb what they brought to
the project.

1 Consensus creep “A downside to consensus is drift, scope

creep, because there is a diffused leadership
base. When you set or change direction it
takes an aggregate psyche or intellect to do it
rather than a singular project manger that
says TIME out, you are leaving the foul lines.
We are better about that…this is how our
culture has evolved to enforce those norms
among ourselves to it works.”

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Managing the perception “People perceived the radio communications

that a single jurisdiction project as a ‘land grab’ control by (a specific
or individual was in jurisdiction) and based on the experience
control of the radio with (a previous multi-jurisdictional project).”
communications system.
2 Recognizing that the This required the hiring of outside expertise.
jurisdictions and (communications engineer)
disciplines involved in
the regional radio project
did not have the
expertise for specific
project elements.
2 Lack of political support Policy team members did not know about the
issues with public safety radio
communications.

2 RFP development Past practices where jurisdictions designed

the system and vendors built it led to
significant cost over runs and systems that
did not function as designed. There needed
to be an alternative to the RFP process.
(Solution: The vendor are required to design
and build)

37
Participant Unanticipated Issue Comments
Number
2, 5 Shared Governance Jurisdictions with minority use of the system
Policy Team voting had full voting rights over jurisdictions that
used the majority of the system.

Policy team members did not have sufficient

authority to make decisions without delaying
the project to consult with their supervisors.

2, 4 Failure to train Training plan: The lack of a comprehensive

and timely training plan leading to system
failures.

Changing technology: Users did not know

how new technology worked. “The coverage
issues were known, however; there was a
misunderstanding on the participant’s part
because of not knowing what 97 percent
coverage meant. The 97 percent contract
with (the vendor) was not 97 percent of the
county and participants believed 97 percent
meant they would solve the coverage holes.”

2, 3 Discipline specific This required consensus teams to meet with

executives refusing to specific individuals to resolve their issues.
participate.

1, 2, 3, 5 Fiscal Financial Meltdown: “The unanticipated issue

was the financial melt down and the ability to
finance is sketchy because of the financial
uncertainty.”

“It is always a catalyst for change. The

economic crisis was a barrier because it
caused jurisdictions to ask how can we afford
a new system in this economic environment?
It took the individual agencies doing their own
thing (building independent radio
communications projects) off the scale
because it was more about the economy of
scale.”

Cost: Shared fiscal resources: Grant awards:

A finance consensus team had an informal
understanding that we were all in this
together financially. “We would collectively
look for grants and if successful, whatever
could go for infrastructure would and what

38
Participant Unanticipated Issue Comments
Number
was left over would be split between the
users. That detail was not captured in any
documentation.” One jurisdiction was
awarded a grant but consensus team
members had changed and the jurisdiction
did not follow the informal agreement. “We
waited too long to stand up finance. It did not
happen.” This was a lesson learned and a
formal finance agreement was developed and
accepted by policy teams as a result.

Cost: Allocation: One jurisdiction was

underwriting the cost to other jurisdictions
and required the development of an
agreement to correct the inequity of cost
allocation.

Cost: Overall expense: There was no

demonstrated need to justify the high cost of
replacing the regional radio communications
system.

Cost: Legal: Site visits identified legal

challenges to RFP processes as potential,
unanticipated expenses.

3 Underestimating how During significant events, the system capacity

the success of the radio was exceed by public safety disciplines.
system would lead to
overuse as other
jurisdictions wanted to
join.

3 Managing for uncertainty The absence of a project manager leaves the

and risk project exposed to managerial, discipline and
fiscal risk.

2. Conflict Management

How was conflict managed in the group? See Table 5.

39
 Table 5. Conflict Management

Participant Conflict Issue/ Comments

Number Conflict Resolution
1 Executive Order A meta-leader, “pointed out that all the city
managers had signed off on the project and
the representative of a specific jurisdiction
said, ‘I guess we are going to do this then.’”

1 Time out/Slow down “When we felt decisions being made that

were not being made in the best interest of
one, or more, smaller groups we would say
wait a minute.”

“People used to come to the table and throw

done. Our response was to buy time and kick
it to a different sub-committee or bring it to a
different committee. We diffused by
deflecting.”

1, 3 Lack of participation as Shared governance decisions did not reflect

a motivator. the needs of non-participating agencies and
that motivated department heads to send
representative to the table to resolve issues.

“Mitigation of an individual decision maker:

inclusion and frequent face to face meetings.
They have to be regularly scheduled and
people have to show up. If they don’t show
up, that means they are not doing their work.”

Managers of specific discipline groups

attended meeting sporadically and did not
have a vested interest in the radio project.

1, 2 Complainers (grenade This allowed for needs, perceptions and risk

throwers) were invited to issues to be identified and addressed.
participate on
consensus and “Let them have their say and then used the
functional teams. tactic of telling people who would not
cooperate that he would go with them to their
policy councils and let them explain why
necessary (public safety functions) would not
have radio access during a storm and flood
threat.”

“You always want to invite the thorns to the

table…always. Because they will become you

40
Participant Conflict Issue/ Comments
Number Conflict Resolution
best friends. Shutting them out only makes it
worse. It self validates they are right that it is
a bad system.”

Turning the grenade thrower around.

Transformation: 1) Social interaction outside
the work place that developed additional trust
and credibility. For example, attending a
conference where down time and networking
opportunities resulted between grenade
throwers and committed consensus team
members.

“Complainers were invited to become part of

the group.”

1, 3, 5 Relationships Conflict issues were known before formal

meetings and professional relationships
allowed for strategy development prior to the
meeting to address the concern.

“Without relationships you wont even get to

the first base, they wont let you into the ball
park. Relationships = long term credibility and
honesty and the fact that they you are in it for
the community issue and not for personal
gain.”

“Relationships are the key because no matter

what you put on paper a road block will
happen and it will be through relationships
that it will get us through.”

“Relationships are key in that is allows for

issues to be resolved informally.”

1, 2, 3, 4 High level executive CAO and CEO representation on policy,

involvement consensus and functional teams gave high
level perspectives on conflict issues and
resolution.

“Leading down a path. The key to changing

how things work is to make them understand
the issues for your county (region) has their
own sets of emergencies.”

“The city mangers all signed on. (A project

41
Participant Conflict Issue/ Comments
Number Conflict Resolution
meta-leader) met with the city managers to
explain the (radio) project to give them
insight.”

The city managers were made to understand

that the fiscal issue answering the question:
Why are we paying more for what we already
have? “Once they understood the money
issues, the technology was a mute point. If
the money is being taken care of…we will
take it. Technology was no longer an issue.”

Group Dynamics in the first year—conflict

management. Refereed by a department
head and was part of the consensus team
from the beginning and attends every
meeting.

One executive was very connected with other

department heads and would talk to
consensus team member’s supervisors if
they were impeding the process.

1 Failure to see the nexus Some jurisdictions were viewed as dragging

between regional needs their feet. This required a specific outreach to
versus local needs. address local needs from a regional
perspective.

2 Demonstrating the need Department executives and policy team

for a new radio members did not understand the needs of
communications system. users and shortcomings of the system.

3, 5 Using Consultants “Consultants role is ancillary. However the

consultant recognized the importance of
governance and they try to provide advice
without stepping on toes.”

“We hired a consulting firm to guide up

through the process in an impartial way. This
was significant to bridging the relationship
issues.”

“The consultant helped us to define the

functional objectives. The benefit of a third
party made all the difference. It helped
understand interference and in building
coverage. It took the guidance and leadership

42
Participant Conflict Issue/ Comments
Number Conflict Resolution
of the IT Department and the consultant to
get all the minds around it.”

1, 3, 4, 5 Consensus Teams “For interoperable communications you really

need to put in the work to bridge different
departments and disciplines to develop the
SOP.”

“You could say that people are a little more

free and easier in the consensus environment
and then when it comes to the more rigid
environment of the ECUAC you have that as
background and a little more comfort that the
consensus process turned out a good
product.”

“Recognizing that governance for a group is

different than running your own agency. You
will have to compromise. It is never going to
perfectly equitable for everyone and some
will be willing to compromise for the greater
group.”

“The operations (consensus) group was able

to define the issues—perceived and
otherwise and begin to address them. They
have met for three years. The group
representation has stayed consistent.”

“You have to spend time together, grinding

through the issues and coming to a place to
realize we need to make a compromise here
to achieve the most reliable level of
communication support. Working through fine
details—some meetings you accomplish a
little and others you accomplish more. The
advantage is that you build relationships and
credibility. You end up with a consensus
agreement that everyone can live with.”

“The unplanned outcome was that we sent

hours and hours in different groups
addressing different element that in doing the
little thinks, we created large pieces of
governance with little push back from policy
groups.”

43
Participant Conflict Issue/ Comments
Number Conflict Resolution
1 Informal/Off Line When conflict existed, the members of the
Communication consensus team let each other know and
developed a strategy off line to lead to a
constructive solution.

“Handled informally and then we talk it

through and make the effort to resolve it. We
put is on the agenda, we say—we are
hearing this.”

3 Fiscal agreements “Governance and grants goes hand in hand.

insuring cost sharing Regionalization and governance is grants. It
and project participation. requires cooperation. The grants require
jurisdictions them to be interoperable.”

“You have a plan and governance so you are

positioned to get the grant money or be more
prepared to spend it if you get it.”

3. Cultural Forces

How did tradition and culture impact the interoperable project? See Table
6.

Table 6. Impact of Culture and Tradition

Participant Tradition/Culture Comments

Number Impact
1, 2, 3, 5 Policy Team business Existing policy teams embraced a tradition of
practices and function conducting business through consensus over
many years. This was the example modeled
in consensus teams as the project got
started.

“Recognizing that governance for a group is

different than running your own agency. You
will have to compromise. It is never going to
perfectly equitable for everyone and some
will be willing to compromise for the greater
group.”

44
Participant Tradition/Culture Comments
Number Impact
Negative—There must be communication at
the policy team level. Meeting minutes must
build a history of the project in the event
something goes wrong and you can no track
back how a project went wrong. The absence
of these business practices creates
significant delays in fixing problems.

1, 2, 3 Jurisdiction and Larger jurisdictions viewed themselves as

discipline views more important to the project. This resulted in
conflict at consensus and policy team.

“The challenge was to change the mind set of

public safety chiefs to see that public works
was just as an important of a public safety.
Chief would all argue that a road worker
should not have immediate access to the
system.”

Protecting turf was a impediment to moving

the radio communications project forward.
Traditional jurisdictional boundaries led to
suspicion that informal leaders on census
teams were working to expand their turf.

1 Finance—Underwriting The existing fee structure created an inequity

other jurisdictions between jurisdictions providing radio
communication services. Project participants
were to pay their full share in the new project
that was substantially more expensive than in
the past.

1 Jurisdictional delays in Consensus team members reflected specific

decision making behaviors (filibuster and attrition) to outlast
their opposition. These behaviors were
accepted as normal for specific jurisdictions.

1 Government takes a “Things like this take a long time in local

long time to move. government take a long time. In my
observation, police and fire professionals,
until they get further along in their career,
have no patience for that.

“It takes a lot of work to herd all these cats

together.”

45
Participant Tradition/Culture Comments
Number Impact
Police and fire professionals are raised in a
911 mindset. Respond, handle and move on.

1, 2 Politics All participants are driven by politics and

decisions must be balanced against this
reality.

1, 3 Consensus Team “This was more of what we did and learned

behavior on our own. We came together as a rag tag
group and over time the norms and culture
developed thought a consensus
environment.”

“The norming (indoctrination into the culture

of the consensus team) process is shortened
when individual players are able to come
together off line and prepare a plan.”

1 On-going, existing There were longstanding tensions between

tension between jurisdictions, departments within jurisdictions
jurisdictions and disciplines.

2, 3, 4 Independence of Each group did things a certain way and did

jurisdictions and not work cooperatively. This was tied to both
disciplines business practices and technology use.
Jurisdictions in the same region used
different radio systems developed
independently and were not interoperable.

Law groups are not trained to do teamwork.

They grow up in a profession where you are
taught to complete tasks as a single unit. This
culture creates barriers to work in a
collaborative environment.

Law professionals were the greatest

challenge to change the mindset that public
safety was not only just and fire services.

“Information Technology and Public Works

organizations are more like police in that they
stay internally focused and are much less
likely to work outside of their sphere. It is
localized to them.”

“The lines in the sand were driven by

discipline more than agency. These issues

46
Participant Tradition/Culture Comments
Number Impact
were resolved through refereeing and political
activity behind the scenes.”

2 Accepting the status The radio system does work, we know it and
quo. there is nothing we can do about it.

2, 3 Cooperation within “Fire is much more cooperative because of

disciplines. mutual aid relationships. Police are more
likely to go on their own.”

3, 5 Culture of the Individual The culture of the individual exists in every

jurisdiction and discipline. There is much
more variability of what an individual will
contribute rather than a group.

“In a paramilitary organization, they go top

down, the chief makes the call. In this
situation, the culture of the individual drives
the decision not necessarily the user.”

“The department heads change but the user

needs stay consistent. You can figure out the
culture of the system is easier than the
culture of the individual. We interview until we
hear over and over the same need. But the
decision is made by one individual who is in
touch with those needs but may ultimately
make their own decision.”

“People bring their own biases to the table

whether they are personal, organizational,
jurisdictional or professional biases.
Sometimes these biases are built on a long
history that sometimes can’t be clearly
defined.”

3, 4, 5 Discipline specific Law: The law discipline rotates positions

traditions within a specific department. There are times
when consensus teams get a law
representative who rotates in and does not
want to be there.

Civilian: It is different with non-sworn/civilian.

The civilian have some passion for being
involved. Civilians are generally assigned to
the same IT for their career.

47
Participant Tradition/Culture Comments
Number Impact
Changing tradition---Information technology
and radio communications: Information
Technology professionals are becoming
involved in radio communications. And as a
result, they do not have a 911, 24/7
emergency response mindset. They are
experiencing a shift how they must conduct
business.

“Primarily Fire is active with ICS (Incident

Command System). Law partners are not.
There are some that are trying and showing
some improvement.”

Disciplines worked in stovepipes with

information, mission and goals with little
coordination between them.

“The compartmentalization’s throughout

the 70–80–90. The cities and county desire
to do everything their way is eroding into you
can’t do it that way anymore.”

5 Emerging Culture of “The players have changed and the politics

Government have changed. New managers realize they
need cooperative agreements to get the most
bang for their buck.”

Members representing disciplines and

jurisdictions are assuming leadership
positions in shared governance, consensus
and policy teams. The result is their focus
becomes less organization specific centered
and more regionally focused.

4. Governance

How did the governance structure support the implementation of the

project? See Table 7.

48
 Table 7. Governance Structure Support

Participant Governance Structure Comments

Number Support
1, 5 Policy Team “The project brought (the policy team) to a
development higher level of governance. It got us past long
standing organizational disagreements
because members had to work side by side
and brought a level of humanity to the table
rather than a strict professional atmosphere.

“Executive level participants carry a little

more weight because they have a higher
level and authority with policy boards—
these individuals have the juice to make
changes in the governance structure. These
projects need a CAO and without this the fire,
police, and IT spin without a place to go for
direction.”

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Consensus Team The consensus group, “became a self

emergence directed team to gather together and start
working this.”

A team was established to look at the existing

radio systems failings and conduct case
studies of potential replacement models. The
teams included representatives from multi-
jurisdictions and multi-disciplines.

The project leader put together an operations

committee whose membership was by
invitation only. Selections were based on who
was good at their discipline (fire, police,
dispatch), who understood the technology.

Consensus teams emerged from policy

groups. This took time but it made all the
difference for a positive outcome.

Consensus teams became troubleshooters.

They had both technical and field expertise to
bridge the gap between technology and use.

Negative—“Police Chiefs will get bored and

send Lieutenants. They get bored and send
sergeants. They get board and send a cop
and you lose your entire strategic thinking.”

49
Participant Governance Structure Comments
Number Support
“A policy team is not a consensus
organization. But policy teams endorse the
collaborative process of the consensus
groups. Policy team members participate in
the sub-groups and have the background. It
would be difficult for a sub groups to pull the
wool over the groups eyes.“

1, 3 Developing a broad view “We left these meetings with a high level of
of the project consensus and understood that there were
other people not in the room that we had to
have their consensus as well.”

Consensus team members knew there would

be decisions made that would have to get
past jurisdictions that had no representatives
at the table. They worked through the
problem until they reached a solution that
non-represented groups would accept.

The existing governance did not represent all

users and there were few people to drive the
project.

1 Individual membership Almost every member of the policy team was

on both policy and a participant on consensus teams. People
consensus teams. live in both worlds. It created collaboration
since we know each other outside of the
project environment.

1 Negative—Informal “There were a lot of elements that went

consensus team beyond the technical, fiscal, marketing
development results in communications, training later, public
failing to focus on all outreach. There is nobody and there still isn’t
elements of the project. that is laying them into a project management
strategy to be sure they are starting and
stopping at the right time to avoid
unnecessary delays in the project.”

1 Negative—Management The early informal development of

by committee governance resulted in project management
by committee. There was not a lot of
individual leadership on consensus teams.
Early on the team lacked direction.

50
Participant Governance Structure Comments
Number Support
1, 3, 5 The norming of “We came together as a rag tag group and,
consensus team. over time, the norms and culture developed
though a consensus environment.”

“The culture took years to work out. The

issue was that we constantly had new people
showing up and had to explain things over
and over. It slowed us down. We had to norm
as a group. This was process required for us
to go through.”

The existing governance did not represent all

users and there were few people to drive the
project.

“You have to spend time together, grinding

through the issues and coming o a place to
realize we need to make a compromise here
to achieve the most reliable level of
communication support. Working through
fine details—some meetings you
accomplish a little and others you accomplish
more. The advantage is that you build
relationships and credibility. You end up with
a consensus agreement that everyone can
live with.”

1, 4 Governance teams and “When conflict exists the members of the

mitigating conflict. team let each other know that leads to
constructive solutions—it is handled
informally and then we talk it through and
make the effort to resolve it. We put is on
the agenda, we say—we are hearing this. It
goes back to locking everybody in the herd.”

“There are some members that are wranglers

to bring stragglers together and it is informal
for the most part at the consensus team level.
Conflict becomes known, the herd puts it one
the table for discussion, we resolve it and
move it further down the path.”

Consensus teams had the flexibility to

change how information was presented to
resolve concerns by discipline. This also
resulted in developing teaching strategies to

51
Participant Governance Structure Comments
Number Support
explain elements of the project that might not
have been cleat to all impacted groups.

“We managed conflict by including all users

in Functional Objective meetings. County IT
talked about the realities of interference and
no one else really knew how bad the system
really was. We had no choice but to
upgrade.”

1, 2, 3, 5 Governance and “Relationships are key in that is allows for

relationships issues to be resolved informally. People
would come to meetings loaded for bear. If
certain department heads showed up, you
knew it was going to be bad. Most of the time
we knew a particular individual was coming,
and so we had time to work on it before he
showed up.”

“It all boils down to cost. It all comes down to

the participating partner’s ability to pay. Even
if you come up with a great formula…it does
not work for us. In this case it was not so
much of a problem but more about building
the political and relationship bridges to get it
built to get the primary players comfortable
with the formula and wiling to carry the ball
and get the policy board to approve it.”

Prior relationships led to the identification of

individuals who had a track record of
collaboration and cooperation.
“A lot of hard work, a lot of relationships, a lot
of patience, and the ability to have the right
people in the group.”

Consensus teams created outreach teams to

meet with key decision makers that had
concerns with the project. In a more intimate
environment, a trust relationship developed
and these key individuals supported the
project.

“Relationships are the key because no matter

what you put on paper a road block will
happen and it will be through relationships
will get us through.”

52
Participant Governance Structure Comments
Number Support
1, 5 Organizational Chart “People used to come to the table and throw
done. Our response was to buy time and kick
it to a different sub-committee or bring it to a
different committee. We diffused by
deflecting—it was the model of the policy
team—the culture creep happened to the
benefit of consensus teams.”

“The players sitting in chairmanship roles we

highly placed in county and city government
was helpful and their style was collaborative
nature was significant and helpful in resolving
conflict. They were much broader in their
approach. This is our system not the city not
the county it is OUR system.”

1, 2 Membership Membership to policy teams was typically

defined by MOU or other agreement.
Membership to consensus teams was
extended to anyone who wanted to
participate.

The open membership model brought

participants to the table that became future
leaders of the project.

“They went to the public safety, engineers,

dog catchers, public works….everybody had
input into the expectations for performance.”

Membership should include an independent

voice to mitigate the risk of the perception
that one specific jurisdiction is taking over the
project.

3 Failing to develop “Governance is an area where we see an

governance. under investment. Governance is the most
important when compared to the other
elements of the SAFECOM continuum. The
investment is small, but it comes early on.
That is often with agencies don’t make
investments. No governance leads to
problems: unsuccessful projects,
dissatisfaction, cost overruns, and schedule
delays.”

53
C. CONCLUSION

Interviewees describe the process of developing shared governance and

managing risk as on going. They believe that shared governance must continue
to evolve and adapt to the changing environments of finance, jurisdiction and
discipline. Shared governance will function as the wrangler of individuals and
groups to mitigate risk issues, changes in technology and public service needs
for radio communication support.

54
 V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of the data gathered indicates that the mitigation of risk
issues in a shared governance structure is multi-faceted. Common threads
across the case studies revealed that developing a shared governance solution
for multi-agency, multi-discipline interoperable radio communications projects
required individuals to take on roles in addition to their specific job assignments.
Other individuals with the leadership skills to bridge jurisdictions and disciplines
emerged as meta-leaders to act as wranglers bringing disparate participants
together. Public safety disciplines, law and fire, were identified as having the
most significant impact on shared governance potentially creating barriers to the
emergence of governance early in the process. This changed as the law and fire
participant view of the project transitioned from a discipline centric focus to a
multi-agency, multi-discipline focus.

Developing risk mitigation strategies through shared governance occurred

as uncertainty was defined in the context of fiscal risk, managerial risk or
discipline risk. Risk that was not addressed through existing shared governance
structures was likely to manifest as conflict. Cultural forces existing in specific
jurisdictions and disciplines contributed to magnifying risk on one hand but
created opportunities to mitigate risk on a project wide scale. Policy and
consensus teams were required to work through the conflict. The resolution of
risk issues likely to result in changes to the overall governance model. The focus
of this chapter will be to expand on these key findings focusing on how they
mitigate risk in a shared governance environment.

A. (HOW) DEVELOPING SHARED GOVERNANCE

1. Roles

Individuals take the sum of their professional experience (roles) and

use that experience to the benefit of multi-jurisdiction, multi-discipline
55
projects. These leaders leverage significant events, project goals and prior
relationships to facilitate shared need and common understanding between
all participants.

Interviewees described participants who represented a variety of public

and private jurisdictions that included county, municipal and special district
government structures. They were from multiple disciplines that included
executive management, law fire, information technology and public works.
Experience related to their specific position might be considered anchor points
that brought subject matter expertise to the development of the shared
governance teams. Specific expertise, however; was not necessarily the critical
element in achieving shared governance on consensus teams. Meta-leadership
skills were more valuable to achieve collaboration on consensus teams. Meta-
leadership skills include understanding the needs of all stake holders in a
communications project, leveraging significant events to facilitate change at a
regional level, demonstrating a shared need and common understanding across
multiple disciplines and governments as well as understanding and
communicating a long view of these projects.

Interviewees discussed the importance of leveraging significant events to

facilitate change on shared governance, consensus teams. Specific to
interoperable communications, significant events emerged from emergency; all
hazard events as well as rules and standards changes for the use of radio
communication technology. The meta-leadership skill is to fully understand the
impact of these events and how they influence individual agencies and
disciplines. For example, the FCC radio frequency narrowbanding requirement
required all public service organizations to change the backbone of emergency
communications equipment. There was clear financial risk as the expense of
converting individual agencies radio systems to a narrow banded format would
be substantial cost as opposed to creating a shared system at a significant
savings. The challenge for meta-leaders was to guide executive leaders to

56
understand that the loss of individual radio systems did not mean a loss of
control in managing radio communication systems.

Meta-leaders were skilled at understanding and communicating a long

view of these projects. One participant described meta-leaders as being a
wrangler. Wranglers recognized that decisions made in policy and consensus
teams would impact the needs of users not present or represented in these
forums. Long view project success required an understanding that the aggregate
decision would impact these stake holders and solutions must include their
perspectives even when they were not voiced. Wranglers also looked beyond
short term project goals out two years or longer keeping a long term perspective
on how a specific project impacts a shared communications system.

Interviewees all pointed to relationships as a key to understanding the

needs of stakeholders in communications projects. They indicated that
participants in multi-jurisdictional, multi-discipline radio projects had previously
worked together in other venues and projects. These shared experiences created
an environment where informal communications facilitated problem identification
and resolution prior to engaging in a formal discussion at policy team levels. It
allowed for consensus team members to share specific expertise that might
otherwise be lost in formal meeting settings. For example, information technology
professionals do not typically work in a 24/7 environment as do public safety
practitioners. Interviewees indicated that informal conversations to talk through
the differences between 8 to 5, Monday through Friday work commitments and
24/7 service expectations resulted in a clearer understanding of competing needs
in that existed on consensus teams. Conversely, prior relationships also allowed
participants to identify individuals whose focus was not oriented around reaching
consensus and to develop strategies toward neutralizing those persons who
created barriers to establishing shared governance.

Demonstrating a shared need and common understanding across multiple

disciplines and governments is closely tied to finding the balance between a
regionally based radio communications system and single agency systems.
57
Interviewees all agreed that achieving consensus in a shared governance
environment required the participation of a consultant with specific expertise in
the development and deployment of public service radio communications
systems. Consultants were narrowly focused on specific tasks such as
developing a strategic plan, RFP and project management. They act as
mediators with a broad focus on public service aggregate needs rather than
discipline specific requirements. As non-affiliated third parties, consultants bring
credibility to projects assisting with teaching the technical aspects of systems,
keeping the focus of the projects on end users rather than department executives
and constantly reminding stake holders that these systems are theirs; not a
vendor’s or a consultant’s. Consultants bring a meta-leadership perspective to
these projects and can also function as mentors to develop the meta-leadership
skills of project participants. This aspect of a consultant’s role becomes important
after they leave a project when participants in policy and consensus teams take
singular responsibility for shared systems.

2. Disciplines

Public safety professionals, law and fire, participation on shared

governance teams to reflective of their tactical view of problem solving.
They can assess problems and respond effectively in a short period of
time. This view of problems solving can detract from shared governance
teams. Shared governance emerges over time and can require months or
years to develop.

The law and fire disciplines were identified as the disciplines that had the
greatest impact on the development of shared governance structures. Their
influence was directly related to how they provide emergency services to the
public. Law and fire disciplines can be described as emergency response
professionals. The emergency response perspective focuses on a 911 mindset
where practitioners are trained to respond to and stabilize emergency situations.
The benefit of law and fire perspectives on consensus teams is that they bring

58
skills to assess problems, develop action plans and implement solutions quickly.
The challenge they present to consensus teams is that the emergency response
mindset can be discipline centric and does not lend itself to the strategic, long
view of interoperable radio projects.

Public safety professional development is generally scenario based with

significant time spent on preparing for what was described as “the big one.” The
distraction of this perspective was that interoperable radio solutions for public
safety jurisdictions did not always include the perspectives of other system
participants such as information technology, public works or transportation
assets. Additionally, the immediate need of deploying technology for public safety
professionals can result in a desire to move as quickly as possible. This can
detract from the need to fully understand the overall impact of installing and using
new technology in an interoperable radio communications environment.

In the context of shared governance, consensus teams functioned as a

buffer between public safety needs and other participants in interoperable radio
projects. Consensus team meetings and informal contacts outside of the regular
meetings facilitated to change discipline centric views to a broader strategic view
of system impact, security issues, jurisdiction needs and discipline requirements.
Interviewees observed that time in position and managerial experience lessened
the impact of a narrow view of these projects. Long-term participation on
consensus teams was identified as a key to balancing the 911 perspective with a
more strategic view of interoperation radio projects.

3. Leadership

Existing policy and consensus teams significantly influenced how

shared governance developed. Executive managers with a much broader
view of interoperable projects were typically the early facilitators.
Discipline specific managers were less likely to view a project from an
aggregate perspective. These team members can be described as stove

59
pipe leaders. The leadership responsibility began to shift later in the
project as discipline centered managers caught the vision of the project.

Interviewees described the emergence of leaders in the context of existing

teams and disciplines in the development of shared governance solutions.
Existing shared governance policy teams led as collective groups to direct the
development of the interoperable radio communication systems. Policy teams
functioned from the perspective of cooperation and modeled that behavior for
consensus teams formed as part of the shared governance process. For both
case studies, members of existing policy teams also served on consensus
teams. These participants brought a level of scope and perspective that
transcended the entire project and was critical to overall project success.

Executive managers (i.e., City, County and Special District CEO’s) were
the leaders with the positional power to drive interoperable radio projects. Their
support of the development of shared governance significantly reduced
jurisdictional and discipline challenges to policy and consensus teams. Executive
managers had prior relationships with other executive managers on previous
projects and were able to work cooperatively on regional interoperable radio
solutions. Interviewees commented that the communication between executives
facilitated the sharing of information on elements of radio projects that were not
completely understood by all participating executives. Their effectiveness on
policy and consensus teams was dependent on their ability to act as wranglers
reducing the risk of scope creep. Executive managers possessed the authority to
support decisions as participants on policy and consensus team.

Interviewees reported that meta-leaders from the law and fire disciplines
began to emerge after the project began developing momentum. Momentum, for
example, resulted from recognizing that the radio frequency narrowbanding
deadline of 2013 required significant changes to how radio communication for
public safety was achieved. Interviewees commented that as law and fire

60
participants began to “catch the vision” of the scope of interoperable radio
projects and the value of shared governance; they began to step up to lead from
a long-view perspective.

B. (HOW) RISK MANAGEMENT

1. Emergence

Shared governance emerged as uncertainty was identified and

addressed as risk. Risk was viewed from three perspectives: fiscal,
managerial and discipline. Each risk type required policy and consensus
teams to develop strategies that included collaboration and cooperation
and reflect the needs of all jurisdictions and disciplines. Shared
governance practices changed when necessary to manage emerging
project risk over the term of the project.

Unanticipated issues can be defined as risk emerging from uncertainty.

Shared governance teams provided the guidance to develop and implement risk
mitigation strategies for these issues. Interviewees reported that unanticipated
issues were drivers that changed how shared governance structures functioned.
Unanticipated issues were primarily centered on fiscal risk, followed by
management risk and finally, discipline risk. Consensus teams were the venue
where unanticipated issues were addressed and mitigation strategies resulted.
Policy teams codified the work of consensus teams by creating policies, entering
into legally binding agreements and modifying existing ones.

Unanticipated fiscal risk issues emerged from the failing economy and
informal financial agreements in the early stages of the projects. The FCC
narrowbanding requirement was announced in December 2004 prior to the
financial meltdown. Interviewees stated that prior to the meltdown, consensus
team members were more focused on developing technical solutions to the radio
projects. It was expected that there would be a significant cost to upgrade the
radio system, but it was not a priority in the early stages of the project to
61
determine how to pay for them. Members of policy teams agreed informally to
jointly pursue funding opportunities and to share grant awards to offset the
overall impact of the project. Over time, policy team members left due to
retirements or promoting to positions out of the area. The unanticipated issue
was that the new members of the policy team did not acknowledge informal
agreements and the aggregate group lost opportunities to share grant funds. The
result was a lesson learned that even informal agreements required the
development and implementation of legally binding agreements by policy teams.
These agreements served as a roadmap for future decisions.

A positive outcome of the financial meltdown was that the reality of

shrinking tax revenues brought jurisdictions to the project. Some jurisdictions did
not initially want to participate because their overall communications costs were
likely to increase. This was due, in part, to the reality that larger jurisdictions paid
a disproportionate share of the overall cost of the existing radio system. One
outcome of the interoperable radio communications project was to bring equity to
cost sharing. Individual jurisdictions realized that the cost of building their own
radio system was much more expensive than participating in a regional one.
Consensus teams became responsible to guide individual administrators and
policy teams to understanding these differences.

Unanticipated management risks were tied to the voting rights of policy

teams for decisions that impacted the radio systems as a whole. Interviewees
reported that legacy agreements in the form of MOU’s gave each participating
jurisdiction one equal vote. The risk of a equally weighted vote meant that
jurisdictions that used the majority of the system capacity could be outvoted by
the majority of smaller jurisdictions. Policy decisions would be legally binding
regardless of the impact on larger use agencies. This model of policy team
management did not require consensus between all users. The implementation
of a weighted voting system may balance this inequity, however; implementation
would require changing the legal document that guides the radio project.

62
Interviewees reported that potential solutions were worked out at a consensus
team level prior to consideration by policy teams.

Discipline risk issues centered on how users believed technology

functioned. For example, interoperable radio system users, regardless of
discipline, did not understand how talk groups impacted a shared resource pool
of limited radio frequencies. Request for Proposal responses identified a specific
percentage of coverage guaranteed by the system design. Users with little or no
radio technology background made assumptions about what 95 percent
coverage meant and were wrong. The risk was that users became frustrated with
how the system worked and blamed each other, or the vendor, for the failures,
perceived or real. The risk was that if these issues were not explained and
resolved, users would abandon the interoperable radio system and build their
own. Mitigation was tied to developing and implementing comprehensive training
programs for all participants at all levels of management and use.

2. Conflict Management

Conflict was typically created by individual participants focused on

single issues. Conflict was generally resolved by meeting individually to
discuss the concern or slowing down the process and talking through the
issue at the consensus team level. Consensus team members understood
that issues raised by a single individual were likely representatives of other
participants.

Interviewees identified specific strategies to mange conflict in both the

development of shared governance agreements and between stakeholders
participating on consensus teams. These strategies were focused on
management and discipline risk issues. Conflict in the consensus team
environment was manifested primarily by individuals seeking to protect their own
jurisdictions first and disciplines second. Interviewees stated that these
individuals were typically focused on a single issue and were not consistent
attendees at consensus team meetings.
63
 Mitigation strategies for conflict related to discipline risk centered on single
issue participants. Single issue participants were described as grenade throwers
that showed up and threw out a single issue with no suggestions to improve or
resolve the problem and then move on. Chronic obstructers or single-issue
objectors, also known as grenade throwers, were neutralized by inviting them to
the table to participate in the larger project. Their issues were discussed at
consensus team meetings and further vetted through informal relationships
outside of team meetings. Research data showed that investing the time at
consensus team level to address grenade throwers may lead overall positive
outcomes on consensus teams. In some circumstances, grenade throwers
became some of the most ardent supporters of the interoperable radio projects.
Single issue resolutions challenges were deferred over multiple consensus team
meetings to allow for the time to understand how the issue might impact the
larger project. Single issues were indicators of more significant challenges in the
scope of the larger project.

Conflict management strategies also worked to mitigate management risk

issues. Management risk to interoperable radio projects included “foot dragging”
at policy boards of participating agencies. Interviewees described foot dragging
as failing to approve legally binding agreements that were required to move the
project forward. The mitigation strategy was to attend policy board meetings with
a representative group of consensus team members as experience indicated that
there were typically misunderstandings of those that were not part of project
policy or consensus teams.

The final risk mitigation strategy identified by interviewees was to use

consultant. The role of a consultant was defined as a third party function with a
single focus such as developing a strategic plan or request for proposal.
Consultants have no loyalty to a jurisdiction or discipline. Their function should be
to guide policy and consensus team members through a process of
understanding project objectives and goals from a macro perspective.

64
 3. Cultural and Traditional Forces

Existing traditions and culture impacted the development of shared

governance solutions. Shared governance teams leveraged interoperable
communications projects outcomes to change traditional views of public
safety services and fiscal responsibilities. Interoperability was a driver that
re-focused discipline and jurisdictional myopic views to a multi-discipline,
multijurisdictional perspective.

Interviewees reported that tradition and culture created challenges in the

development and implementation of interoperable radio communications projects
that shared governance teams were required to address. Tradition and culture
impacts are discussed as they relate to fiscal, managerial and discipline risk.
Tradition issues were related to cost sharing, status quo perspectives and job
assignment timelines. Culture issues included inter-organizational tension, policy
team management styles and the individual versus organizational decision-
making processes.

Fiscal risk was tradition based and linked to cost sharing agreements
where existing radio communications expenses were not equally shared. This
inequity was known by radio communications partners but was never corrected.
The issue was recognized at both policy and consensus teams. The overall cost
of the new system would include cost-sharing increases that included both the
expense of new equipment and establishing equal sharing of overall cost. The
risk was that participating jurisdictions would not agree to increased cost sharing
expenses. This was mitigated by policy and consensus team leaders explaining
to participating jurisdictions the realities of the existing inequity.

A second tradition based, fiscal risk was a common view held by some
executives who questioned if the project expense was really necessary.
Interviewees reported that since existing communications systems seemed to
work “as is”, there was no need to replace or update them. What executive
leaders did not understand was that while public safety disciplines could use

65
existing radio systems, system capacity problems and narrow banding
requirements required significant financial investment to mitigate these issues.
Interviewees recognized that is was necessary to spend time with executive
leadership groups and one on one meetings to explain the specifics of system
needs and technical solutions required to fix them.

Tradition based discipline risk was related to assignment time limits for law
professionals. Law executives are typically moved through a variety of positions
in a specific department to build experience throughout a variety of assignments.
Interviewees stated that the associated risk to interoperable radio projects
occurred when individuals assigned to policy and consensus teams lack
motivation to be involved or participate as productive members of the teams.
These individuals were described as filling a seat and buying time until they
rotated out of the position. This became less of a discipline risk issue over time
as the importance of the radio communications project required that participating
jurisdictions assigned individuals that could be advocates for their department’s
not passive participants.

Culture issues were oriented around managerial and discipline risk.

Interviewees identified the most significant culture issue as inter-agency tension
that existed prior to the start of the radio communications projects. The tension
was not specifically linked to a particular event but manifested over time as
competing needs and service goals escalated into mistrust. This tension
decreased over time as legacy members of policy and consensus teams left the
project. A second mitigation factor was tied to the development of relationships
and partnerships over time. Team members began to get past perceptions as
shared governance emerged to develop regional solutions for interoperable radio
projects. A third mitigation strategy was to include a consultant that brought a
third party, neutral perspective. The presence of the consultant eliminated
perceptions and facilitated solutions based on demonstrated facts and needs of
participating jurisdictions and disciplines.

66
 A second cultural impact on the development of shared governance was
directly related to how the policy team made decisions. Interviewees stated that
existing policy teams had MOU’s in place prior to the creation of consensus
teams. The “culture” of policy teams was to discuss issues in a less formal
setting where there was an assumption that participants would act in the best
interest of the group. The culture of decision making migrated into consensus
teams tasked with developing solutions for interoperable radio projects. What did
not exist were formal documents that detailed decisions, agreements and
directions. This detracted from the overall effectiveness of consensus teams
when early participants on these teams were not present to verify or support
previous informal agreements. Interviewees described these situations as
lessons learned and worked to include more formal agreements as consensus
team solutions were made.

A final culture issue was expressed in the context of the competing

cultures of the individual versus the culture of the user. Interviewees described
the culture of the individual as reflective of the paramilitary nature of public safety
organizations. Individual department executives are responsible to be the final
decision making authority on every issue. As executive leaders change, so do
their visions. In contrast, the culture of the user was described as staying
consistent and static. Change in the user’s culture happens over long periods of
time. Interviewees reported that the culture of the user should be the driver of
interoperable radio communications projects. Discipline and jurisdiction risk can
result when the sole executive resists changes that would benefit the large user
community. This “culture” risk is mitigated by continued dialogue with individuals
who have final decision-making authority for organizations.

4. Governance

Shared governance formed as policy teams and consensus teams

began the work of creating solutions for interoperable radio
communications projects. The emergence of how teams functioned took

67
both spending time together and working to accomplish project objectives
(time and grind). Policy and consensus teams became less contentious the
longer they worked through the variety of risk issues that faced
interoperable radio communications projects.

Interviewees reported that shared governance decision-making was a key

foundational element that determined how successful an interoperable radio
system from both a technology and management perspective. Within the
governance structure, consensus teams functions as forums that brought
individuals together side by side to identify risk issues, work through long
standing, inter-organizational conflicts and brought credibility to the project at
both jurisdictional and discipline specific levels. Interoperable radio projects
require a view that public safety is not just police and fire but public works,
information technology and executive managers. Shared governance functioned
to allow all participants to understand the needs and requirements of all
disciplines. It allowed policy and consensus teams to act as a unit when working
to mitigate any type of risk. Consensus teams were self-directed groups that
were leaderless in nature. Key decision makers were members of both policy and
consensus teams. These individuals were described as meta-leaders that
bridged the flow of information to facilitate project wide decision-making
processes.

Governance requires an investment of time that equates to the salary cost

of participants. This was an area that interviewees described as the most under
invested. The benefit to the interoperable radio project was that jurisdictions had
a level of buy with the commitment of time. This, in turn, reduced management
risk issues related to jurisdictions. Interviewees reported that governance
required a year or more to develop where early consensus groups were rag tag
in nature and, over time, developed a culture that was more project focused and
less jurisdiction and discipline specific. Long-term governance solutions also led
to succession of meta-leaders as participants cycled out of the project to be
replaced by a member that understood the history and culture of the group.
68
C. CONCLUSION

This purpose of this thesis was to answer the question: How do intra-
organizational teams develop shared governance structures that mitigate risk
associated with multi-agency, multi-discipline interoperable radio
communications projects? The results of this research revealed that successful
shared governance solutions to interoperable radio communications projects are
directly related to the skill and abilities of participants to develop relationships
that transcend managerial and discipline centric viewpoints. Relationships bring
trust and credibility that radiate beyond consensus teams through departments,
jurisdictions and ultimately elected policy boards that approve legal agreements
and budgets.

The transformation of public service traditions and culture is a logical

outcome through the process of developing shared governance for interoperable
radio communications projects. What worked in the past does not necessarily
positively contribute to successful shared governance models. Policy and
consensus teams acts as filters to incorporate the positive elements of legacy
traditions and cultures and facilitate changes to best practices for shared
governance solutions.

A key part of building relationships was “time and grind.” Time and grind is
the process that policy and consensus teams go through in the development of
shared governance solutions. There is no substitute for the investment of time
with the purpose of grinding through details of a project. The process will result in
detours that require meta-leaders (or wranglers) that keep the groups on target to
successfully deploy interoperable radio communications projects. Relationships,
facilitating traditional and cultural change and time and grind all work collectively
to mitigate risk issues specific to the emergence of shared governance solutions.

The focus of the thesis centered on two types of groups, policy teams and
consensus teams, which exist in a shared governance model. One discovery was
the identification of a third type of teams in a shared governance model.

69
Interviewees identified objective teams as laundry list groups that are focused on
tasks such as developing functional objectives for radio communications projects.
These groups are typically open to any one interested in participating and are
more likely to bring grenade throwers. They are limited in scope, short term and
did not exist long enough to develop norms or become part of the shared
governance culture. Future research might be conducted into the impact of
objective teams on the development of shared governance for interoperable
radio communications projects.

In conclusion, the mitigation of risk in shared governance models was

characterized by one interviewee in the context of three questions:

1. How much does it cost? (Fiscal Risk)

2. Who has the power? (Managerial Risk)

3. What is in it for me? (Discipline Risk)

A successful shared governance solution will incorporate strategic

initiatives, goals and objectives that create an environment that results in meta-
solutions to interoperable projects. Shared governance moves beyond simply
answering these questions. It shapes the emerging public service culture of
creating and maintaining a safe community, providing exceptional service to the
full range of public safety professionals and developing and maintaining a
positive collaboration between them.

70
 LIST OF REFERENCES

911Insight. (2006). Monterey County operational area emergency

communications system strategic plan. Santa Monica, CA.

Aspland, Michael. (1996) COPS: A blast from the past. Master’s thesis, California
Lutheran University: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Conklin J. (2008, October). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of

wicked problems (rev). Retrieved November 28, 2008, from
http://www.cognexus.org

Dallas, G. S. (2004). Governance and Risk. New York: McGraw Hill.

Donahue, J. (2004). On collaborative governance: Corporate social responsibility

initiative working paper no. 2. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University.

Fight, A. (2006). Introduction to project finance. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hawkins, D. (2008, July/August). Progress toward interoperability. Public Safety

Magazine, 31.

Johnson, J. (2009). Solve the interoperability formula. Mission Critical

Communications, 24(4), 39–42. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from
http://www.mccmag.com/

Leiss, W. (2003). The social amplification of risk. In N.F. Pidgeon, R.E.,

Kasperson, & P. Slovic (Eds.). Searching for the public policy relevance of
the risk amplification framework. Cambridge University Press: London

Lichtenstein, B. B., Uhl Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J.D., Schreiber, C.
(2006). Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on
leading in complex adaptive systems. Lincoln, NE, University of Nebraska.
NS 3180 Required Readings.

Luna, L. (2009). Urgent communications: Vendors moving steadily in the right

direction on digital radio noise problem. Retrieved December 3, 2009,
from http://urgentcomm.com/mobile_voice/news/vendor-solution-radio-
noise-20090902/index.html

Magnuson, S. and Rusling, M. (2009, March). Fear itself. National Defense, 10.

71
Marcus, L. Dorn, B.C., & Henderson, J.M. (2005.) Meta-leadership and national
emergency preparedness. Cambridge, MA: Center for Public Leadership,
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

National Institute of Justice. (2008). Understanding FCC narrowbanding

requirements. Retrieved on October 6, 2008 from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/technology/communication/fcc-
narrowbanding.htm

National Task Force on Interoperability. (2003). Why we can’t talk: Working

together to bridge the communications gap to save lives—A guide for
public officials. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.

SEARCH The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics. (2008).
Company information. Retrieved on November 28, 2008, from
www.search.org/about/company

ScienceDaily. (2007, December 5). Complex ‘wicked’ problems better solved

individually that through internet groups. Retrieved November 27, 2008,
from www.sciencedaily.com/relefases/2007/11/071130172937.htm

Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications

Ltd.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Rational
actors or rational fools? Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral
economics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 31, 329–342.

Snowden, D. & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A leader’s framework for

decision making. Harvard Business Review, p. 5.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security SAFECOM. (2008). Interoperability.

Retrieved on October 6, 2008, from
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/interoperability/default.htm

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). Interoperability continuum.

Retrieved on November 28, 2008 from www.SAFECOM.com

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). The system of systems approach

for interoperable communications. Washington, DC: author.

72
U.S. Department of Homeland Security SAFECOM. (2005) Commonwealth of
Kentucky statewide strategic plan for communications and interoperability.
Retrieved November 30, 2008, from
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitycasestu
dies/

U.S. Department of Homeland Security SAFECOM. (2003). Statewide strategy

best practices report. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitycasestu
dies/

U.S. Department of Homeland Security SAFECOM. (2008). Welcome to

SAFECOM. Retrieved November 27, 2008, from
www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/

Valcour, L. (2008, September/October). Working together toward interoperability.

PublicSafety IT, 6.

Van Staveren, M. (2006). Uncertainty and ground conditions: A risk management

approach. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Yin, Robert K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). CA:
Sage

73
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

74
 INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST

1. Defense Technical Information Center

Ft. Belvoir, Virginia

2. Dudley Knox Library

Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California

3. Richard Bergin
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California

4. Jeffrey Munks
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California

5. Fred Meurer
City of Monterey
Monterey, California

6. Fred Cohn
City of Monterey
Monterey, California

7. Tim Shelby
Monterey Police Department
Monterey, California

8. Sam Mazza
Monterey Fire Department
Monterey, California

9. Farhad Mansourian
County of Marin
Marin, California

10. Mark Brown

Marin County Fire Department
Marin, California

75
11. Zack Sterngold
DELTAWRX Management Consultants
Woodland Hills, California

12. Jerry Aspland

Fountain Valley, California

76