USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE TO DISASTERS THE CASES OF HAITIAN AND NEPALESE EARTHQUAKES
Master THESIS
Name: Lala Mustafazade Student number: 1662457
Master Crisis and Security Management Supervisor: Mr. J. Sabou Second reader: Dr. E. Devroe
Academic year: 2015-2016 Word count: 23, 568
Table of Contents
1.! Introduction ...3
2.! Theoretical and Conceptual Framework...7
2.1!Theoretical Framework...7
2.2!Conceptual Framework...15
2.2.1! Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management...15
2.2.2! Crisis Coordination and Management...18
2.2.3! Types of Coordination and Management...20
2.2.4! Methods for coordination of humanitarian logistics...22
2.2.5! Information Sharing and Technology in Humanitarian assistance...24
2.2.6! Implication of distributed data collection and sharing...28
3.! Methodology...29
3.1 Research design: case study...29
3.2 Description of the units of analysis (cases)...29
4.! Analysis and results...49
4.1 Presentation of the cases...49
4.2 Sub Research Question 1...50
4.3 Sub Research Question 2...51
4.4 Sub Research Question 3...51
4.5 Sub Research Question 4...52
4.6 Comparison between the two cases...52
4.7 Conclusion and main Research Question...58
5.! General Conclusion...59
1.! Introduction
The purpose of this thesis is to compare how the humanitarian response has changed over the past five years, from the Haitian earthquake of 2010 to the Nepalese earthquake of 2015, in the context of advancement of technological innovations. Having been focused on these two cases, the thesis explores the areas of humanitarian response, the corresponding challenges and, most importantly, the impact of technological innovations.
Humanitarian work ... is thought to be selfless, motivated by compassion, and by its very definition suggests good work. Relief being a gift, it is not expected that anyone (most especially the recipients) should examine the quality or quantity of what is given” (Harrell Bond, 1986, p. XII). However, this perception of humanitarian aid has changed significantly over the last years, following extensive damages caused by natural disasters. The impact of each disaster is immense, as the disasters have not only had a direct effect on country and population such as life causalities, damage to infrastructure, but also a continuous effect on the social and economic situation of the country (Ergun et al., 2010). According to the “Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2015), some 42 million people died as a result of disasters between 1980 and 2012. Disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, cyclones, and tsunamis result in approximately $250 billion to $300 billion worth of economic damage every year (UNISDR, 2015). In 2015 alone, 346 disasters were reported with 22,773 people killed and 98.6 million people affected (UNISDR, 2015a). In this matter, an effective response to unforeseeable disasters have become one of the primary global concerns (Kovacs & Spens, 2011).
A disaster tests the preparedness and capacity of humanitarian actors as they collaborate and, at the same time, reduce human suffering (Kovacs & Spens, 2011). Despite the fact that disasters are different each time, the response methods remain the same regardless of the nature of the disaster (Tomasinia & Van Wassenhove, 2009a). The immediate reaction to and planning of an adequate response is able to limit the consequences of these events (Kovacs & Spens, 2011). Providing relief efforts to an affected population is the key factor of effective humanitarian logistics (Kaynak & Tuger, 2014). In this respect, coordination amongst the relief workers is one of the essential factors of humanitarian logistics (Chandes & Pache, 2010). In a humanitarian logistics context, a lack of inter-organizational cooperation and coordination can create big losses of human and material resources (Kaynak & Tuğer, 2014, p. 443).
This considerable rise has been noticed in number, form and size of humanitarian actors which include non-government, military, private and international organizations (ALNAP, 2008). Today the humanitarian world has become a congested and competitive, with more than 4,500 humanitarian organizations and ten thousands of humanitarian workers (Walker & Russ, 2010). Moreover, the number of donors and diaspora groups has increased significantly. Nowadays, local and national actors also join the humanitarian response by taking a central role in relief efforts (Humanitarian Policy Group, 2016). Increasingly, the field of humanitarian relief has been attracting a vast amount of scholars and disaster practitioners (Apte, 2010; Sheu, 2007).
The rise in number of organizations in the field of humanitarian response makes the mechanisms for coordination more comprehensive. As a result, to an inefficient response becoming a significant issue. (Kreps & Bosworth 1994; Paton et al. 1998). Considering that these organizations have different backgrounds, objectives and characteristics, the coordination and decision making on key issues becomes even more challenging (Humanitarian Policy Group, 2011). Additionally, there are different internal and external factors that can influence the response of humanitarian actors and create uncertainty about the provided work. Regardless of the type of challenge that can influence the humanitarian logistics, appropriate information management can decrease the uncertainty which can arises during this time frame (Tomasinia & Van Wassenhove, 2009a). Information is a key factor which can unite the humanitarian actors during the relief efforts (Altay & Labonte, 2014). Lack of up to date information can affect the crisis situation and can even worsen it further. Given that complex disasters require the continuous renewal of disaster related information, stakeholders must be able to create and develop the existing information communication technologies (Vidolov, 2014).
Fortunately, technological innovations applied in humanitarian relief efforts have significantly improved in recent years (Altay & Labonte, 2014). Many humanitarian agencies have invested in technological innovations which promise to improve interaction among them and facilitate information sharing. Their experiences from previous disasters have also shown that effective coordination is possible when communication between the actors is sufficient (Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, 2011).
Today, the significant increase in the usage of mobile phones and internet access enabled tools have afforded affected population s direct voice to be heard by the humanitarian actors. This allows humanitarian actors to effectively assess the needs of affected population and formulate their response (Humanitarian Policy Group, 2016). In this context, the affected
population can quickly become first responders in a non-traditional sense, for they are able to send requests, provide critical information and by that support a speedy assessment of the needs (IFRC, 2013). Crowdsourcing and social media are serving important role for humanitarian response, as they establish the ground for exchange of the information, and at the same time bringing accurate feedback from affected population regarding the effectiveness of relief efforts (Humanitarian Policy Group, 2016). Individuals around the world, now known as digital volunteers come together to assist humanitarian organizations and affected population (IFRC, 2013). The data from satellite imaginary, social media and text messages have made possible to draw the detailed maps of the disaster areas, including infrastructure damages as well as location of humanitarian infrastructure, camps as well as requests and needs of affected population (IFRC, 2013).
This thesis will discuss the progress in the application of technological innovations by the humanitarian actors in the aftermath of disasters. Humanitarian actors include the various organizations such as government, non-government, military, local as well as donor organizations that provide humanitarian assistance to affected populations in need1. In this context, technological innovations include several tools such as mobile phones, social media, crisis mapping, crowdsourcing, information sharing portals and others (PEIC, 2015).
Two cases have been selected for this thesis, precisely Haiti and Nepal, based on their similarities, particularly economic welfare, magnitude and consequences of disaster, involvement of large number of humanitarian actors and, most importantly, the use of similar technological innovations and their evolution between the two cases. Both earthquakes are considered the deadliest of their decades. These similarities have provided room for a comparative analysis of the effects of utilization of technological innovations and their impact on humanitarian response.
The Haiti case has been known for the employment of large-scale technological innovations for the first time which enabled the information exchange among humanitarian actors and the affected populations (Chapelier & Shah, 2013). Furthermore, since the Haiti earthquake the attention on technology has increased dramatically which has also facilitated the relationships between formal actors, such as humanitarian organizations, and informal technological societies (Sandvik et al., 2014).
The second case, the Nepalese earthquake, was the most recent major earthquake which allows obtaining information regarding the up-to-date technological innovations used for
humanitarian purposes. Within five years, the technology used in Haiti has been developed and new technological innovations have been introduced to the humanitarian actors.
The following research question will find an answer in this thesis:
Did the use and nature of technological innovation change humanitarian response from the Haitian earthquake (2010) to the Nepalese earthquake (2015)?
The following sub Research Questions are relevant to guide the research:
1) How have technological innovations been used by humanitarian actors in humanitarian logistics coordination in the case of the Haiti earthquake?
2) How have technological innovations been used by humanitarian actors in humanitarian logistics coordination in the case of the Nepal earthquake?
3) To what extent has there been a change of the use of these technologies in 2015 in Nepal compared to 2010 in Haiti?
4) To what extent have these technological innovations influenced humanitarian logistics coordination?
The subject of the thesis has been chosen with respect to the importance of humanitarian response due to the unexpected nature of disasters and their devastating consequences on human lives. Technological innovations have already become a tool to assist and guide humanitarian organizations in responding to disasters on a timely manner, and, consequently, diminishing the human causalities. In this respect, the utilization of all available tools as well as technology for saving human lives is a matter of importance.
Given that humanitarian logistics is a widely discussed and researched topic among scholars. However, the benefit from technology in humanitarian field is a new concept that largely remains inadequately explored and requires additional attention therefore. This thesis will allow to comprehend the role of technological innovations in humanitarian response that is able to provide new approaches to address old challenges.
2.! Theoretical and conceptual framework
This chapter is divided in two sections. The first section introduces the theory of diffusion of innovation explained by several authors and particularly by Rogers (1983). Taking into account that the main focus of the thesis is technological innovations, specifically their impact on humanitarian response, the theory of diffusion of innovation allows to understand different notions featuring the adoption of technological innovations. The second section introduces several concepts. The order of the concepts has been chosen with regard to comprehending the field of humanitarian response in detail. Each of the concepts is linked with the previous one. It begins with a broader concept and gradually decreases afterwards, thereby enabling the analysis of the main subject of the thesis – technological innovations in a humanitarian contex
In this matter, first the explanation of the Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management will be provided. This section also discusses humanitarian actors, particularly the UN, who take the leading role in humanitarian response and logistics. The challenges that humanitarian actors usually face are also discussed. The following section focuses on crisis coordination and management, which is one of the main challenges to humanitarian actors in the course of relief efforts. In the second section, the importance of the concept of crisis coordination for humanitarian response is elaborated. The type of challenges in crisis coordination are discussed in the third section. The challenges to coordination among and within humanitarian organizations, as well as the affected state are the main focus. The fourth section describes the methods of coordination of humanitarian logistics, specifically the cluster approach introduced by the UN. Information sharing – a crucial component for coordination efforts – is viewed in the fifth section, followed by information and communication technologies that facilitate information sharing and improve coordination efforts. The final section focuses on the implications of data collection and sharing. This section addresses allegations, information and misinformation overload that pose challenges to effective information sharing.
2.1!Theoretical Framework
The theory of diffusion of innovation is frequently applied within different fields, such as social science, health and education. During the mid-twentieth century, the attention to this theory increased significantly, however lately a decline has been noticeable. The change was set in motion by the increasing interest for communication technologies and its impact on
society (Abbott & Yarbrough, 1999). In the beginning, the classical diffusion theory had been introduced by sociologists in the 1950’s. The theory determines the following five stages of adoption of innovations: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption (Abbott & Yarbrough, 1999).
The model of 1954, developed by the George M. Beal and Joe M. Bohlen, introduced the differences of adopting innovations with regard to timing and consumption of different types of information (Abbott & Yarbrough, 1999).
Over a period of time, the diffusion theory has been discussed by several scholars. Nevertheless, the biggest impact on and the main research of the diffusion theory was made by Everett Rogers (De Marez et al., 2011) who in 1983 discussed the theory from different points of view, such as elements pertaining to the diffusion of innovations, attributes of innovations, innovation-decision process and categories of adopters.
Rogers (1983) explains diffusion as “the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (p. 5). Communication in diffusion is different in a way that it contains new ideas. In this respect, diffusion can be described as a social change where the change itself take place in an activity or structure of the system. “When new ideas are invented, diffused, and are adopted or rejected, leading to certain consequences, social change occurs.” (Rogers, 1983, p. 6). It should be mentioned that new ideas can also occur during emergencies, disasters or political revolutions.
For Rogers (1983) there are four elements in the diffusion of innovations:
Rogers described the first element - Innovation as “an idea, practice or project that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption" (Rogers, 1983, p. 12). An innovation, method or idea can be perceived as ‘innovation’ even if it already exists for a considerable period of time. Individuals can be familiar with the existence of an innovation for some period of time, but will not show any positive and negative attitude towards it and will not adopt or reject it. Overall, innovation is considered to be a desirable factor. However, there are some innovations that are not desirable for the members of the systems or the system itself. Moreover, an innovation can be desirable for one organization and undesirable for another.
Second element – Communication channels – includes mass media and personal communication. The author defined communication channels as “a process in which participants create and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding” (Rogers, 1983, p. 5). It should be mentioned that mass media is the fastest way to reach out to potential adopters and provide them with information regarding the existence of the innovation. With the help of mass media, a few individuals can reach a vast majority of
people. Alternatively, personal communication is considered to be a more effective method for the adoption of innovation. Studies have shown that before the adoption of an innovation, individuals or organizations do not rely on information provided by scientific sources, but on the past experience of individuals who already adopted and tested the novelty. It should also be mentioned that mass media is not an effective tool for adoption of innovations in developing countries – the opposite is actually true, for interpersonal channels are more effective for reaching the minds of individuals and making changes in these countries.
Rogers (1983) characterizes the third element – Social system – as a group of interconnected units that are involved in common problem solving in order to achieve mutual objective. Individuals, groups, organizations can be part of social system. Their involvement in common problem solving tie/bind them together. It should be taken into consideration that diffusion of innovations emerges in a social system. In this respect, multiple factors, such as the structure and norms of social system, the opinion of decision-makers/leadership, types of innovations, consequences of innovations can impact the diffusion process.
The last element indicated by Rogers (1983) – Time – is considered one of the main elements of diffusion process, because time is engaged in different levels of innovation diffusions. Firstly, it plays a role between the awareness of an innovation until the adoption or rejection of the innovation. Secondly, it is the period of time with regard to an early and late adoption in comparison with other units of the system. Thirdly, it is the rate of innovation which includes the number of units that adopt the innovation at a certain time.
Rogers (1983) also explains the innovation-decision processes when adopting new ideas. In this regard, he indicates five levels in the process:
Knowledge is the first layer at which individuals learn about existence of innovations and get the first idea about its operation. However, some argue that individuals are mostly having passive attitude towards learning about the innovation and unintentionally becoming familiar with an innovation. It is also argued that no one actively looks for an innovation until they are aware of its availability. According to Coleman et al. (1966), individuals mostly become familiar with the innovation from personal communication. Coleman et al. (1996) provides an example from the healthcare sector where doctors use medication if they learn about it from their fellows. The need for a change is also an important factor to learn about innovations. It, however, might occur in two ways: individuals might develop a need after learning about the innovation and vice versa.
Knowledge can be divided in three stages when applied to innovation; awareness-knowledge, how-to-knowledge and principles-knowledge. On awareness-awareness-knowledge,
individuals discover the innovation. At this stage, individuals are stimulated to look up for how-to-knowledge and principles-knowledge. On how-to-knowledge, they learn the ways to use an innovation. A problem can arise when an innovation is difficult and complex to use. In this respect, the factor of how-to-knowledge gains significance. Principles-knowledge explains the method and reasons behind the implementation of the innovation. In some cases, it is possible to adopt innovation without the principles-knowledge, however, this might have led to the misuse of innovation and early suspension of activity. Rogers (1983) also distinguished the differences between the early and late knowers of innovations. For Rogers, the early knowers of innovations have more education, higher social status and participation, they are closer to mass media and interpersonal channels, and finally, they are more cosmopolite than later knowers.
Rogers (1983) indicates persuasion as a “stage in the innovation-decision process in which the individual forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation” (p. 170). At this stage, individuals become more involved in innovation and look for the information about it. There is an uncertainty factor that occurs as the results of new ideas. They are curious about the positive or negative impact of the innovation in case of its adoptions. In this respect, individuals actively look for the information based on evaluation. This kind of information can be found from scientific sources, however, the evaluation-related information is more convincing if it is acquired from peers. Information provided by the mass media on innovations is usually very general. Another factor that is commonly indicated as part of the persuasion stage is preventative innovation. During the preventative innovation, the individual adopts the innovation in order to prevent undesirable circumstances that can happen in the future. An example of such measures can be purchasing the insurance or holding preparations for emergency situations, earthquakes and etc.
The decision stage takes place with individuals taking steps towards adoption or rejection of new ideas. In some cases, in order to decrease the uncertainty, individuals adopt the innovation on a partial basis. The partial testing of innovations helps the individual to determine its effectiveness at an earlier stage. Some innovations can be divided and tested on a partial basis, others only can be adopted in their entirety. Concerning the rejection of innovation, it is divided into active and passive rejection. Active rejection characterized as thinking of adopting and even testing the innovation, however, do not adopting it eventually. Contrarily, passive rejection does not even consider the adoption from the earliest stage.
The implementation stage happens when the individual starts to utilize the innovation. Before the implementation stage, the innovation was only imagined as into use. However,
during the implementation, innovation is practically put into use. Nevertheless, challenges also arise during the implementation stage. One of the challenges is how to exactly put the innovation into practice. Even though the innovation passed the adoption stage still uncertainty exists in this stage as well. Additionally, the implementation process is more complex when adopted by the organization. The organization has a complex nature where different individuals are involved in adoption and implementation process and each of them has an opinion. Rogers (1983) distinguished that “the organizational structure that provides stability and continuity to an organization, may be a resistant force to the implementation of an innovation” (p. 174). The period of time to reach the end of implementation depends on the type of innovation. Eventually, the implementation is adopted fully when it becomes a part of the organization’s ongoing practice.
During the confirmation stage individuals look for strengthening factors for their decision to adopt the innovation. However, during this stage several factors might change their decision. In this respect, during this stage, individuals try to avoid the condition of dissonance. As a consequence, they look only for information that will support their decision and do not question the decision that they have already made. It should be mentioned that negative information during this stage can cause discontinuation. Rogers (2003) describes a discontinuance as “a decision to reject an innovation after having previously adopted it” (Rogers, 2003, p. 186). The occurrence of discontinuance is very common during the confirmation stage. The discontinuance can also be divided into two types; replacement and disenchantment. During the replacement type, the previous innovation is rejected and new innovation takes its place. Taking into consideration the regularity of introduction of innovations almost in every field, the replacement of innovation occurs frequently. Disenchantment occurs when the adopters are not agreeing with the outcomes of the innovation.
Rogers (1983) also make the categorization for adopters of innovations. For him there are five types of adopters. The first type of adopters – innovators – are open to any and all new concepts and innovations. Innovators are socially open and have good relationships outside of their own circle. Friendships are very usual for innovators. Additionally, they are more adventurous and risky. Therefore, they are more inclined to adopt innovation. Their openness with outside of their original system allows them to bring new ideas to the system, however, in some situations this factor is not tolerated by other participants.
The second level of adopters are early adopters. This type of adopters is more restricted in their choice, but is considered as a leader between the other participants. Other members of
the system follow early adopters in order to attain recommendations and information related to the innovation. Early adopters are aware of the fact that their opinions are respected by other members of the system and consequently they carefully consider each step, while making the decision regarding the adoption of innovation. This puts them in a difficult position as their advice towards innovations is considered to be very important.
The third type – early majority – is in close communication with other participants of the system, however, they don’t hold any leadership position. They are very deliberate in making the decision and require more time to adopt the innovation when compared to the earlier discussed types. However, they prefer being not very late and not very early while adopting the innovation.
The fourth late majority type waits until other participants of network adopt the innovation. They are concerned about the results and the consequences of the adaptation. However, the pressure by the other participants and financial needs are able to make them to adopt the innovations.
The last type – laggards – is the most concerned type regarding the innovations. They prefer to wait until other members of system use innovation and be confident regarding the effectiveness of adopted innovation before applying it. While other adopters of the systems look for the change and new ideas in order to improve their system, laggards are more focused on their previous experience. Their decision is purely rational for them because they lack for resources and can’t afford innovation that can be unsuccessful. In this respect, the economic situations of laggards restrict themselves in decision making.
Rogers (1983) also emphasizes the importance of roles of certain individuals in the innovation decision process, such as the opinion leaders and change agents. Opinion leaders are individuals that can influence other member of the system. In this respect, there are two different kinds of innovative leaders, those that are open to innovations and those that are not inclined to the adoption of innovations. These type of leaders are generally very social, cosmopolite, hold high status and are open to any kind of communications. The most important characteristic of opinion leaders is their influential position in the system. Change agents are explained by Rogers (1983) as “individuals who influence clients’ innovation decisions in a direction deemed desirable by a change agency” (p. 28). Change agents are attempting to influence the adoption of innovations, however in some situations they can decrease the process of diffusion and prevent the adoption if they think innovation is improper for the certain situation or organization.
Rogers (1983) also described the five attributes of the innovations which decrease the concerns of the adoption of innovation. The first attribute distinguished by Rogers is relative advantage. Rogers explains relative advantage as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes” (p. 213). The type of innovation decides which kind of relative advantage is important for the adopters. Relative advantages can be economical or status-oriented. While adopting any kind of innovation the adopter wants to gain the social status. Different organizations can adopt the same innovation, however, status and name, brand is considered one of the main concerns of adopters. Some adopters are more interested in status gaining than others. Social status is more important for innovators, early adopters, and early majority. Late majority and laggards do not seek social status. In this respect, the economic factor can influence the rate of adoption of innovations. For example, if the cost innovation decreases, the rate of its adoption will increase. A good example is the pocket calculator, which initially cost approximately 250$ in 1972. Due to technological development, the price of calculator dropped significantly to approximately 10 US dollars, which consequently resulted in an increase in its adoption rate.
It is a known fact that potential adopters always seek information before adopting the innovation. In this respect, one of the key elements of the relative advantage is that relative advantage consists of evaluation related information. This allows to relative advantage to be one of the best predictors regarding the rate of adoption. Rogers (1983) distinguished several “sub dimensions of relative advantage: the degree of economic profitability, low initial cost, a decrease in discomfort, a savings in time and effort, and the immediacy of the reward” (p. 217). Rogers (1983) explains compatibility as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters” (p. 223). The innovation can be compatible or incompatible with several issues. Firstly, the innovation can be incompatible with social values, culture and beliefs of the adopters. Secondly, an innovation can be compatible with previous ideas that already existed in the system. This previous idea might affect the adoption and rate of innovation in a positive and negative manner. Additionally, if the individual has experience failure in previous innovation, this might affect the adoption of new innovations, as individuals will have a fear and uncertainty towards future innovations. The third compatibility is related to the needs or requirements of clients, if the innovation meets this need or not will greatly impact is adaptation. Personal communication with the clients, surveys and other methods are often used in order to determine the needs of clients carefully. In some cases, the clients might not have
realized that they have the need until they get familiar with innovation and its outcomes. When the needs of clients are met, the rate of adoption increases.
Complexity describes the innovation in a way that innovation can be complicated to apply and utilize. The use of innovations can be categorized as complex or simple to use. While some innovations are very clear from their nature, others are not. If the utilization of the innovation is complex, then the adoption rate of the innovation will be lower.
Rogers (1983), explains trialability as “the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis” (p. 16). Trialability of innovation can be associated in a positive way with the speed of adoption. Trialability decreases the uncertainty that adopters might have. The innovation that can be divided into separate trials is more inclined to be more positively perceived by the adopter than the ones are not divisible. The quick adoption of innovations also depends on the frequency of testing the innovation. If the innovations tested more times the adoption will be sooner as well.
Observability attribute explains to which degree the result of innovation is apparent to the organization. The outcome of some innovations are very easy to monitor and describe to other members, while other innovations are complex to explain. It should be mentioned that the observability impacts the rate of adoption of innovation in a positive manner.
Rate of adoption is discussed by Rogers (1983) “as the relative speed with which an innovation is adopted by members of a social system” (p. 206). It can be determined by the number of individuals who adopt the innovation in a given period of time. The below discussed attributes affect the rate of adoption. However, other than that, different factors can influence the adoption rate as well. Firstly, the rate of adoption will be lower if more individuals are involved in the decision making process. The second factor that can influence the rate of innovation is the different communication channels. As discussed, mass media and interpersonal communications can facilitate the adoption. However, the chosen communication channels should be suitable for the respective innovation. For example, using mass media for sophisticated innovations will decrease the rate of adoption. Finally, the nature of social system, its norms and communication structure also impacts the rate of adoption.
Rogers (1983) also touched upon the consequences of the innovations. For author, one can describe and classify the types of the consequences, however, it is difficult to predict the time frame and the way the consequences will occur. The author analyzes the consequences according to three dimensions. The first dimension – Desirable versus Undesirable consequences – implies that the desirable and undesirable factor of innovation depends on how innovation will influence the members of the system. Innovation with desirable consequences
will have a functional impact on the individual or the system, while innovation with undesirable consequences will have dysfunctional impact. In most cases each member of the system is being influenced by the consequences. However, innovation might be functional for the system but not functional for some members of the system. In this case, it is difficult to decide whether consequences are functional or dysfunctional. The result depends on what is more important the system or just some members of it.
Second dimension introduces by Rogers (1983) is Direct versus indirect consequences. Rogers (1983) describes the Direct consequences as “the changes to an individual or a social system that occur in immediate response to an innovation” (p. 385) and Indirect consequences as “the changes to an individual or a social system that occur as a result of the direct consequences of an innovation” (p. 385).
The third dimension is Anticipated Versus Unanticipated Consequences. Anticipated consequences are the ones which are planned and recognized by the members of the system overall. Contrarily, unanticipated consequences are the ones which are not planned or recognized by the social system. Adopter usually can acquire the information regarding the outcomes as well as anticipated consequences of innovations they want to adopt. However, to acquire information unanticipated consequences is not possible because it is not known at the time of adoption.
Rogers (1983) diffusion of innovation theory has been used for different studies in order to evaluate the adoption of technological innovations. A wide range of studies have examined the adoption of computer technologies in the education sector (Sahin, 2006). Using Rogers (1983) theory, the level of computer use, the characteristics of adopters, the factors that can increase the use of technology in educational sector have been analyzed by different scholars (Sahin, 2006). Diffusion of innovation has been also used to determine the adoption of medical innovations and information technologies in the healthcare sector (Cain & Mitmann, 2002).
2.2!Conceptual Framework
2.2.1! Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management
The growing number of natural disasters that yield increasingly devastating consequences puts pressure on humanitarian organizations to supply humanitarian aid in efficient ways (Abidi et al., 2014). These organizations are, “motivated by altruistic desire to provide life-saving relief; to honor principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence; and to do more good than harm.” (Michael & Thomas 2008, p. 11). However,
it should be mentioned that the success or failure of humanitarian work depends heavily on effective crisis response of humanitarian logisticians (Van Wassenhove, 2006).
Directly following the disaster, humanitarian actors need to provide assistance in a timely manner. This can include rescuing of injured people, distribution of food and shelters, providing medical assistance, and recovering access to isolated areas (Costa et al., 2012). In this manner, logistics can be considered a key component in any disaster response. In the past, logistics has been seen as a necessary expense, but not an essential element of humanitarian work (Beamon & Kotleba, 2006a). In recent years, the perception of logistics and supply chain management has changed as organizations increasingly realize the impact and importance of logistics to response operation (Van Wassenhove, 2006). In particular, “for humanitarians, logistics is the processes and systems involved in mobilizing people, resources, skills and knowledge to help vulnerable people affected by disaster” (Van Wassenhove, 2006, p. 476).
When a disaster strikes, it is essential to provide efficient and effective supply, such as timely delivery of humanitarian assistance to affected people (Cozzolino, 2012). It has been emphasized that the speed of reaction after a disaster strikes is of the utmost importance, especially since most people are saved within the first 72 hours (Tomasini & Van Wassenhove, 2009a). Any delay in response operation can cost human lives (Van Wassenhove, 2006). The logistics should be arranged in a manner that the goods reach the exact people in the exact time (Van Wassenhove, 2006). In this respect, logistics is also one of the costliest element of disaster response. It is assumed that, overall 80% of total costs can be attributed to the logistical operation (Van Wassenhove, 2006).
Humanitarian logistics deal with various types of disasters including earthquakes, epidemics, tsunamis, droughts, terror attacks and war. Sometimes different disasters occur at the same time or in quick succession (Kovács & Spens, 2009). However, the differences in effects, origin and size of disasters can prove difficult for humanitarian logisticians (Kovács & Spens, 2009). In this respect, each disaster requires a special approach (Tomasini & Van Wassenhove, 2009).
One of the challenges that humanitarian logisticians face is the participation of different actors in humanitarian operations (Kovács & Spens, 2007). In this regards, one can see that humanitarian supply chains are not only dealing with provision of goods, but also coordination of donors (Chandraprakaikul, 2010). Government, military, humanitarian agencies, non-government organizations, private organizations, and donors can be defined as main actors in relief work (Kovács & Spens, 2007). The actors involved in humanitarian relief work have various goals, interests, capabilities and logistical proficiencies (Balcik, et al., 2010).
Generally, none of the actors can solely provide relief (Bui et al., 2000). One can see that disasters assess the readiness of a system to work together and collaborate. During the normal period, these actors have little motivation to cooperate. However, tensions during the emergencies make them unite their experience and assist the affected population (Tomasini & Van Wassenhove, 2009). In this respect, it can be hard to coordinate the relief assistance due to involvement of different actors. Moreover, the challenges can be seen in relation to the host country. Bureaucratic issues and policies of the country can cause additional delay (Tomasini & Van Wassenhove, 2009). Those challenges which occur in the aftermath of disaster can be overcome by efficient logistics and supply chain management (Van Wassenhove, 2006).
There are numerous organizations that can supply humanitarian aid in today’s multi-faceted and comprehensive humanitarian relief environment. However, there are limited numbers of organizations that possess the experience and power to ensure that humanitarian regulations, standards, and norms are sustained (Randolph, 2004). Over the last ten years, with the change in perception of humanitarian crises, there has been considerable change in the role of the United Nations (UN) in humanitarian environments. With the resolution 46/182 in 19912, the General Assembly expressed its concern regarding the devastating effect of disasters and emergency situations and tasked the UN to provide primary leadership and coordination of humanitarian actors with respect to assisting affected countries. Since that time, there have been significant developments with regard to disaster and crisis response system enhancement implemented by the UN Secretariat and agencies (Randolph, 2004).
Today, the UN takes a leading role in disaster response. In this respect, “no one can deny the considerable efforts and progress made by the UN’s humanitarian arm to improve its approach and response to crisis-affected peoples.” (Randolph, 2004, p. 225).
The UN has set up a considerable number of programs, both funding and agencies, which specialize in humanitarian response (Zwitter et al., 2014). Six UN agencies, which are the World Food Programme (WFP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), and the World Health Organization (WHO) are involved in humanitarian relief operations. The UN focuses on development of the humanitarian system by providing predictability, accountability and partnership (Humanitarians Outcomes, 2011). Today, the UN uses different approaches such as private sector engagement, partnership with
international humanitarian actors, and implementation of innovative technologies in order to address the challenges quickly and effectively (OCHA, 2014). The UN possesses the largest collection of data on crises and disasters worldwide, which allows it to allocate the necessary funds and make the necessary decisions in crisis environments (Harat et al., 2015). In 2014, 24.5 billion U.S. dollars worth of humanitarian assistance has been distributed to affected countries and over 45.8 million people have been targeted for assistance (Global Humanitarian Assistance, 2015). Every year, five million metric tons of food is delivered to 95 million people in need worldwide with the assistance of the UN (UNDAC, 2006).
Moreover, in order to enhance the effects of coordination during the humanitarian response, a cluster approach has been used by the UN, particularly by UNOCHA (Ramazan & Tugrul, 2014). Since 2005, the cluster approach has been implemented in 30 countries to provide humanitarian relief. Cluster approach includes UN and non-UN actors which can work together on humanitarian actions such as logistics, nutrition, water, shelter, early recovery and others (OCHA, 2012a).
One of the important agencies of the UN is the World Food Proqramme (WFP) which is in charge of humanitarian logistics. When humanitarian response is managed by clusters, WFP leads the logistics cluster (UNDAC, 2006). After the operation begins, the logistics cluster deals with coordination, information management, and the providing of logistical services during the humanitarian response operations (OCHA, 2013).
2.2.2 Crisis Coordination and Management
Most of the time, humanitarian supply chain management is associated with distribution of services and goods to disaster areas. It ... encompass the planning and management of all activities involved in sourcing and procurement, conversion, and all logistics management activities. Importantly, it includes coordination and collaboration with channel partner, which can be suppliers, intermediaries, third party service, and customer... (Council on supply chain management professionals, 2008 cited Blecken, 2010, p.58). Coordination has been regularly mentioned as a primary concern of humanitarian supply chain management (Blecken, 2010). Coordination can be defined as “an overarching, principled way of managing delivery of humanitarian assistance through strategic planning, policy making and facilitation of cooperation and consensual decision-making” (OCHA, 2013, p. 9). Several benefits of effective coordination, such as the timely allocation of resources or decreasing the cost of operations are noteworthy. Additionally, effective coordination will make more
resources, for i.e. financial, technical, information available for the all actors (Moshtari & Goncalves, 2011).
Coordination is still the primary weakness of humanitarian response operations (Rey, 2001). One of the most important reasons for challenges in coordination is participation of a multitude of actors in the humanitarian field. Humanitarian relief includes different organizations, such as international humanitarian organizations, the affected state, the military, local and international NGO’s and private sector companies, each of which may have different characteristics, interests, capabilities and backgrounds with respect to their logistical expertise (Balcik et al., 2009). In the aftermath of the disaster, hundreds of different humanitarian organization can be deployed to the affected state in order to provide assistance. For example, during the Sarajevo conflict up to 304 humanitarian organization were working in the same field. In East Timor, it is estimated that thousands of actors were operating in the conflict area (Parisetti, 2010). Additionally, natural disasters, especially earthquakes get the attention of populations and institutions in terms of their desire to help victims. As a consequence, the affected country faces various actors that can be unprofessional and ineffective (Parisetti, 2010).
Usually, there is no single actor that will possess sufficient resources for the affected area (Balcik et al., 2009). The increased number of organizations active in the humanitarian field, makes the coordination more comprehensive and complex which in turn can lead to an inefficient response (Kreps & Bosworth 1994; Middleton & O’Keefe, 1998). Organizations need not only to function within their own management rules and regulations, but also to follow the rules and regulations of other actors (Walle & Dugdale, 2012). Besides, the various management and administrative structures, the complex relationships between actors can pose additional challenges for good coordination (Costa et al., 2012). In this respect, the purpose of coordination is to enable the humanitarian work and to avoid disabling the distribution of aid. When too many lives are in danger, there is no time to manage disagreements which move attention from key problems (Mul, 2002). Even if well prepared and organized humanitarian actors will not be effective if operating separately from others (Van Wassenhove, 2006). In this matter, “appropriate” coordination allows to save more lives and use the resources efficiently (Balcik et al., 2010).
The humanitarian cooperation is not about commanding other actors in disaster area, it is about the reaching of an agreement amongst them. The main objective of coordination is to ensure that humanitarian organization collaborate together in order to reach collective goals and provide the humanitarian aid in accordance with their regulations and capacities (OCHA,
2013). Coordination implies taking a considerable number of decisions on different stages with various organizations running different activities (Dugdale et al., 2006).
Hertz (1996) emphasizes two conflicts that may arise during the operation that can challenge the coordination efforts. They are geographical coverage and type of services used by humanitarian organizations. Firstly, the organizations should provide similar services, but in different areas or they should provide different services but in the same area. In this manner, they can escape overlaps (Hertz, 1996).
2.2.3 Types of challenges in coordination
One of the approaches to the challenges in coordination has been mentioned by Brenna and Sondorp (2006). The authors have noted the type of challenges in coordinating in politically unsteady disaster affected states. Firstly, effective coordination requires assistance by the local aid organizations to the international actors. However, international organizations enforce their specific political views and regulations on their aid workers. As a result, international organizations don’t work with local organizations. Secondly, the violence against humanitarian staff make the working conditions difficult. Finally, the affected state also enforces their own rules to the humanitarian staff which leads to challenge to gather information about the needs of victims (Brenna & Sondorp, 2006).
The role of the affected states is also emphasized by the UN Resolution 51/194 3 which confirms the primary role of the affected state in disaster response. However, during the disaster, the allocation of aid and the coordination of actors can be beyond the capability of affected state. For example, during the 2003 earthquake in Iran, the responsibility for coordination was given to the Iranian Red Crescent Society (Parisetti, 2010). In some of the countries, for example in Armenia, the response protocols in case of a disaster are considered a state secret. In this regard, it poses challenge to other humanitarian actors to operate in a coordinated manner with the affected state. Moreover, despite the fact that some states have appropriate response plans, the public workers, mostly on the local level, lack the knowledge about coordination in the field (Parisetti, 2010).
Despite the various number of actors in the field, other factors, such as language and cultural differences, competition between the actors for donations, are identified as possible challenges for coordination (Baldick et al., 2009). Usually, humanitarian actors have the same
goals, but different capabilities. In this respect, some of the actors, such as NGO’s are not eager to join coordinated relief operation due to the competition for media attention, which is tied to future financial resources (Dolinskaya et al., 2001).
Managers in humanitarian organizations are hesitant to enter into a coordinated humanitarian response as they have concerns regarding its cost. For instance, there is an opinion that coordination intensifies the bureaucracy and reduces maneuverability and the ability of organization to respond to disasters in a timely manner (Moshari & Gonçalves, 2011). Another example of a challenge is the independence of each organization. Each humanitarian organizations looks for possibilities to enhance their profile during the coordination efforts that distinguish their capabilities. In this respect, for humanitarian actors this means that coordinated work jeopardizes identity and sovereignty of an organization (Moshari & Gonçalves, 2011). As a result, organizations can be cut off from their decision making autonomy (Burbridge & Nightingale, 1989).
The Human Resources factor is also essential during the relief work. Humanitarian workers can take different responsibilities and functions such as strategic, operational or technical specialists, as the number off deployed personnel could be limited (Bollettino & Bruderlein, 2008). Their responsibilities depend on mandate and the resources of the relief organizations. They can be deployed to politically and/or economically unstable countries (Bollettino & Bruderlein, 2008). According to the Aid Worker Security Database, violence towards humanitarian workers occurred in 30 countries in 2013. Among them, the most dangerous areas were Afghanistan, Sudan and Syria (Humanitarian outcomes, 2014). In this respect, health and security factors can challenge their deployment (Bollettino & Bruderlein, 2008). For example, the conflict situation which broke in 2013 in Sudan, led to an increase of attacks on aid workers (Humanitarian outcomes, 2014). It should be mentioned that most humanitarian organizations lack experienced logisticians on their staff (Blecken, 2010).
Operating in other countries requires working knowledge of various cultures, economic situations and state procedures. Moreover, humanitarians always work with unknown factors. One disaster can be followed by another one that can put even more pressure on and still require adequate response by humanitarian workers (Van Wassenhove, 2006). Even very experienced humanitarian workers can face challenges while facing a new type of complex disaster. In this regard, scholars agree that humanitarian workers should be carefully selected, trained and educated before deployment (Pateman et al., 2013). Evidence has shown that most of the humanitarian workers have not received any training in logistics. They come from different backgrounds and reach their positions as a result of their experience in previous disasters (Fritz
Institute, 2005). Furthermore, it is discussed by a number of authors that the ability and attitude of humanitarian workers don’t correspond with the demands of humanitarian organizations, because they do not possess the proficiency in developing shared goals, strengthening of relationships, communication skills, implementing relief operation and others. As a result, this might affect coordination as well (Moshari & Gonçalves, 2011).
2.2.4! Methods of Coordination in humanitarian logistics
The Humanitarian coordination system was being set up based on the framework provided by General Assembly resolution 46/182 in December 19914. The purpose of the resolution is to ensure that the affected population receives the coordinated humanitarian assistance. As the result of the resolution, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) was established as a central coordination platform for humanitarian actors. One year later, the Department of Humanitarian Affairs was established as a secretariat for the coordination matters (OCHA, 2012b). However, due to the ongoing challenges of humanitarian coordination, the establishment of a new agency that can develop and strengthen the relations between the actors and enable more coordinated humanitarian response was decided in 1997. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) was established in place of Department of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA, 2012b).
However, coordination problems during the crisis such as Darfur in 2003 and disasters such as, the Indian Tsunami in 2004 have shown the need for a new approach to improving humanitarian response (OCHA, 2012b). In order to address gaps and enhance humanitarian response by building the relations between the actors, a “Cluster approach has been established by OCHA (Humanitarian outcomes, 2011). The first time cluster approach was introduced in 2004 as the result of challenges in coordination between UN, Red Cross Movement, different humanitarian actors and NGOs (GPPI, 2010a).
The main objective of the cluster approach is to distinguish one actor in each sector to take the role of leader and coordinate the other actors. The aim of cluster is to define the arrangement of work between the organizations and their role and responsibilities in each sector. The cluster agencies are mostly chosen from UN entities, however, IFCR, IOM and NGO s can also play a significant role in a cluster (Humanitarians Outcomes, 2011). The cluster approach includes nine response areas, two service clusters and four cross-cutting issues
4 A/RES/46/182
(GPPI, 2010a). In the aftermath of earthquake, the lead agency is introduced to other actors in order to make sure that coordination mechanisms are created properly. This agency takes an active role in organizing the meetings on national, subnational and provincial levels. These meetings are usually held on a daily, weekly and monthly basis in order to develop the common approach, strategies to disasters, share information, provide assessment and evaluation of provided work and organize mutual activities (GPPI, 2010a).
Mostly, the cluster starts its function after the humanitarian relief organizations arrive in the affected country and finalizes its responsibilities when the international humanitarian organizations start controlling their activities. The term of a cluster coordination can vary between 4 weeks and 18 months (Humanitarian outcomes, 2016). Most of the situations, the participation in cluster is not mandatory. Even if organizations participate in clusters, they are not obliged to follow the rules made by the lead agency. However, it should be mentioned that in some cases organizations are not allowed to take part in response efforts except when they are part of Clusters. For example, this problem occurred during the relief efforts in Kenya, Indonesia, and the Philippines (Clarke & Campbell, 2015).
Although the cluster approach was implemented in order to enhance coordination efforts, there are also challenges to the cluster approach itself. The cluster approach is effective when all the humanitarian organizations participate actively in the meeting where they can share information regarding the relief operation and clearly define their roles and responsibilities in the humanitarian field (GPPI, 2010a). Involvement of local and international NGO s is still a primary challenge for the cluster. Additionally, involvement of the authorities is very low due to a lack of capacity and political interest (GPPI, 2010a). Furthermore, the humanitarian aid organizations also lack human resources with respect to leadership and logistics skills (Hicks & Pappas 2006).
One of the basic objectives of the cluster approach is information sharing. Clusters are established in order to coordinate gathering, exchanging and storing of information (Clarke & Campbell, 2015). Challenges can arise with the information sharing. The meeting that the main the purpose is information sharing is not carried out efficiently due to absence of some actors. As the consequences, the important information being lost and not discussed with all actors which leads to coordination failure. Moreover, change of cluster coordinators which can happen often also hazards preserving the important information data (GPPI, 2010a).
2.2.5! Technological innovations and Information Sharing
One of the essential factors and basis of any type of coordination is information sharing (McDonald, 2007). Accurate and updated information about the destruction to infrastructure and the needs of affected populations are essential in order to perform an effective logistical coordination. Limited information sharing can result in duplication of efforts as well as gaps in provided services (Dolinskaya et al., 2001). In the complex setting of a humanitarian disaster, coordination and effective decision-making depends on information obtained from and shared by other actors (McDonald, 2007 cited in Walle & Dugdale, 2012, p. 285). Without accurate information regarding the needs and existing resources, the coordination among the humanitarian actors is a challenge (Dolinskaya et al., 2001).
Information is a key factor that has the potential to augment humanitarian relief operations by integrating coordination through better collaboration (Altay & Labonte, 2014). Within the humanitarian sector, there is now consensus that better communication, data collection and information management will lead to better risk assessment, targeted prevention and more effective preparedness activities in humanitarian action (Altay & Labonte, 2014, p. 551).
Saab et al. (2008) discussed the three key factors that are essential for information sharing in humanitarian response. Firstly, the significance of standardization for information sharing and system interoperability. Secondly, the importance of gathering and analysis of relevant information in timely manner. Thirdly, the importance of adequate technological innovations as well as their adequate utilization by humanitarian staff.
Fortunately, significant changes are occurring that will improve the relational dynamics between humanitarian actors, with the help of information and communication technology. Despite this fact, there are gaps in information technology and communication infrastructure in terms of distribution and analysis of information both during and after a disaster. During these periods, different information challenges can occur (Altay & Labonte, 2014). Throughout humanitarian relief operations information problems are frequent and mainly include assessment of the quality, appropriateness and timeliness of information (Coyle and Meier, 2009).
Comfort (1993) emphasized the three key roles of information technology during the humanitarian response. Firstly, information technology allows humanitarian workers to
establish networks where they can communicate with each other and concentrate on the same issue. Secondly, information technology increases the speed and precision of information. Thirdly, it allows to build database that includes information on the area and the citizens which can be useful for humanitarian workers to find other ways to respond if it is necessary (Comfort, 1993).
Humanitarian relief work is significantly developing due to technological innovations. Almost every day new technologies appear in every aspect of the humanitarian system (IFRC, 2013). Technology stimulates volunteerism by crowdsourcing, enhancing cooperation between the actors and for profit organizations. It empowers the affected people during disasters and develops information management (Velerie, 2012).
Considerable development has been seen in the field of information technology and communication that aim to improve coordination and cooperation between humanitarian organizations. During recent crises, information communication systems allowed humanitarian organizations, as well as individuals, to take part in disaster response without being located in disaster areas (Palen & Liu, 2007). The concept of information in humanitarian operation includes involvement of different actors in data collection, information processing and information sharing (Day et al., 2009). Furthermore, information systems are a key component that builds a bridge between actors in the field (Altay & Labonte, 2014). “Quality information, reaching more humanitarian actors, will result in better coordination and better decision-making, thus improving the response to beneficiaries as well as accountability to donors.” (Altay & Labonte, 2014, p. 1).
Today, the growth in mobile communication and satellite-based networks facilitates information sharing. At the same time, an increase in social network and mobile phone owners enable affected people to communicate in a new way (Gisli, 2012). Information systems are crucial for any humanitarian organization in responding to disasters and carrying humanitarian relief work. The life of affected people depends on timely and accurate data. Information systems are important for entire humanitarian operations, which include early warning, response and recovery. Information systems support the development of effective information flow by contributions to the work of humanitarian activities which also contain logistics and supply chain management (Emmanuel & Elaine, 2011).
This significant shift in the concept humanitarians occurred after the Haiti earthquake in 2010. New areas, specifically Digital Humanitarians began on this date. In response to disasters the number of volunteer technology organizations have increased (Meier, 2015).
Moreover, the mapping project played a considerable role in the Libyan crisis in 2011. The Standby Task Force (SBTF)– a volunteer group that gained prior experience in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake, responded to the crisis by creating a Libyan Crisis Map. The map included real time incidents or trends gathered by population and related workers. UN specialists also used the Crisis Map (Velerie, 2012).
Another technological innovation used during disasters by volunteers is social media. Volunteers’ activity on social media increases the potential of humanitarian actors to respond to disasters in an effective way. Worldwide accessibility of information technologies enables citizens to participate in humanitarian work, and, at the same time for humanitarian actors to understand and respond to the disaster affected people’s needs (IFRC, 2013). Use of social media, especially Twitter, has been investigated widely by researchers. During emergencies Twitter allows users to distribute short messages and updates on disasters to assist humanitarian action. It maintains communications and enables information allocation to different users (Bhatt et al., 2014). During the earthquake and tsunami which struck Japan in 2011 social media, such as Twitter, Facebook and Japanese social media MIXI, was utilized by users to communicate and share information. Around 1,200 tweets were posted within the hour after the disaster (Velerie, 2012).
Additionally, local social media is also taking part in information sharing such as distributing tips, news and warnings before and after disasters. Mexico City is an example where a free mobile application has been initiated by civil authorities in order to warn citizens before disasters (Velerie, 2012).
However, the tweets and other messages on social media posted can result in information overload. Not all the information distributed can be useful for emergency responders; moreover, all information posted on social media individually can be challenging and even impossible for emergency responders to investigate. In this respect, automatic systems are the new approach to solve information overload (Imran et al, 2014). One of the new technological approaches in response to information overload is the AIDR (Artificial Intelligence for Disaster Response) platform which was designed in order to classify and filter the data from social media. AIDR aims to categorize information by needs, infrastructure damage or donations posted. The platform was successfully implemented after the Pakistan earthquake in 2013. This facilitated the response efforts of the humanitarian actors as the information were easy to make use of it (Imran et al., 2014).
Another technological innovation implemented in the aftermath of disasters is mobile banking. Mobile banking accounts are used for supplying the affected population with food
after disasters. The accounts are charged by humanitarian organization for buying food from the areas closest to the affected population instead of delivering food vouchers. Moreover, this technological improvement allows humanitarian organizations to cooperate with local producers in an efficient and timely manner (Gisli, 2012). Mobile cash has a meaningful impact on humanitarian response as it provides more secure ways of transferring money to affected people and monitor the turnover of money provided (OCHA, 2012c).
Concerning use of technological innovations, different factors can cause its limitation for effective response. For instance, for distant and undeveloped countries it is difficult to connect to the Internet (Huang et al., 2010). According to the experts in the field of technological innovations, the major problem in developing countries is electricity. Giving the example of Zimbabwe, one can see that the power surges make utilizing the web inefficient for communication technologies. Mobile phones can as well be considered untrustworthy as it might take hours to deliver the message (Meier & Leaning, 2009).
Moreover, it is important to note that the level of education in undeveloped countries normally go hand-in-hand with the level of access to information technology and subsequently they profit less from the advantages that information technology brings. Insufficient access makes this group more vulnerable to disasters, because it makes them more difficult to involve and/or inform them via social media (Huang et al., 2010). Another demographic group that is impacted and constrains the use social media are the elderly, because for most of them it is too complicated to acquire information via social media (Wendling et al., 2013). Illiteracy, poverty, lack of information in local languages and limited computer skills can be considered the main reasons that prevent the utilization of technological innovations to its full potential (Huang et al., 2010).
Deployment of technological innovation during the emergencies can also be limited by the authoritativeness of the political system such as currently exist in Sudan and Zimbabwe. The repressive regimes are also limiting the use of communication technologies due to their political system (Meier & Leaning, 2009). For example, in Myanmar, one can see that the government did not allow the employment of a Very Small Aperture Terminal which is small two-way telecommunication system that receives and share information via satellite and Broadband Global Area Network that is high speed internet as well as tele and phone communication portable systems in humanitarian work. The Telecoms Sans Frontiers (TSF) which is a specialized organization in telecommunication system during emergencies was denied to work in the territory due to restriction of deployment of the technology (Meier & Leaning, 2009).
