Kontogiannis and Malakis (2020) proposed a polycentric control framework for analyzing multi-agency emergency response, integrating STAMP, AcciMap, the Viable System Model, the T²EAM model, and Complex Adaptive Systems concepts into seven interacting control processes, and applied it to the 2018 Attica (Mati) wildfire. The paper's Discussion explicitly limits the contribution: the taxonomy of control challenges is neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, its use requires prior familiarity with the underlying literature, the systematic integration of Complex Adaptive Systems principles into polycentric control remains incomplete (local adaptation can conflict with the need for a common orientation), how modern information technology can support real-time convergence of distributed teams in large-scale disasters with degraded resources is unexplored, and the framework awaits validation against a broader set of incidents. All four directions share one object — the framework and its seven control processes.

Background

Emergency response to major incidents—wildfires, floods, pandemics—involves multiple agencies (fire services, police, coast guard, medical services, local and national government) operating under stress, uncertainty, and dynamically changing conditions. Analyzing why such responses fail has traditionally relied on system-based accident models. STAMP (Systems-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes) models accidents as failures of an organization's control structure rather than of single components; AcciMap is a related diagrammatic method that maps contributing factors across societal, regulatory, organizational, and operational levels. These hierarchical-control models, however, do not explicitly treat the decision-making trade-offs, sense-making, resource sharing, and adaptive coordination that arise when many semi-autonomous units must act together—a situation Kontogiannis and Malakis call polycentric control, meaning control distributed over multiple centers (agencies and echelons) that coordinate both vertically (across command levels) and horizontally (across organizations). Other theoretical traditions speak to this but remained fragmented: the Viable System Model (VSM), a cybernetic account of how organizations survive and adapt through recurrent adjustment loops; Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS), which emphasizes self-organization (order emerging from local interactions rather than central design) and co-evolution (units and their environment mutually shaping one another); and the T²EAM model (Taskwork and Teamwork in Effective and Adaptive Management) of team adaptation. Kontogiannis and Malakis (2020) synthesized these into a single framework of seven interacting polycentric control processes—Steering (goal competition and the efficiency-versus-thoroughness trade-off), Organization and Leadership (span of control, centralization versus decentralization), Sense-making and Mental Models, Common Operating Picture (the shared situational display and intent articulation across units), Planning-Doing-Checking (a Plan-Do-Check control cycle per unit, including margin-of-maneuver decisions), Transfer of Control (handovers between shifts, agencies, and human–automation teams), and Adaptation—organized in Table 1 as a taxonomy of challenges facing operators. They applied the framework to the 23 July 2018 Attica (Mati) wildfire in Greece, which caused 101 fatalities, reconstructing coordination breakdowns such as leadership ambiguity between the Unified Coordination and Control Center and the on-scene incident commander, an inadequate common operating picture (a reconnaissance helicopter running out of fuel, disregarded meteorological forecasts), loss of resource margin when all resources were committed to a concurrent fire, poor transfer of control between shifts and agencies, and failure to adapt plans as the fire spread. In the Discussion the authors state the framework's limitations and future research needs: the Table 1 taxonomy is not exhaustive and its items are not mutually exclusive, which limits quantitative cross-case comparison; effective application presupposes familiarity with STAMP, VSM, and CAS, a barrier for practitioners; systematic integration of CAS principles (self-organization, co-evolution) into polycentric control is incomplete because local adaptation can conflict with the need for a common orientation across units; and it remains open how modern information technology can support real-time convergence of distributed teams in large-scale disasters with degraded resources, and whether the framework can be validated against a broader set of incidents.

Problem Statement

The Discussion of Kontogiannis and Malakis (2020) states four future research needs for their polycentric control framework of emergency response: (1) refine the taxonomy of control challenges (their Table 1) so that its items approach mutual exclusivity and exhaustiveness and can support quantitative cross-case comparison, and so that it can be applied by analysts without prior familiarity with the STAMP, VSM, and CAS literature; (2) systematically integrate Complex Adaptive Systems principles—self-organization and co-evolution—into polycentric control, resolving the tension the authors identify between local adaptation of individual response units and the need for a common orientation across units; (3) explore how modern information technology can support real-time convergence of distributed response teams in large-scale disasters under degraded resources (degraded communication and information infrastructure); and (4) validate the framework against a broader set of emergency-response incidents beyond the single 2018 Attica (Mati) wildfire case. As the source states it, this is an open research agenda: the components are linked by their common object (the polycentric control framework and its seven control processes), but each can be pursued independently. All four directions are required: the agenda is discharged only when all four have been addressed, and progress on any subset leaves the remaining directions open.

References

  1. Kontogiannis, T., & Malakis, S. (2020). A polycentric control analysis of emergency responses: An application to a wildfire case. Safety Science, 128, 104776. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104776
  2. Minniti, M., Rodriguez, Z., & Williams, T. A. (2024). Resilience Within Constraints: An Event Oriented Approach to Crisis Response. Journal of Management, 51(3), 1133–1169. DOI: 10.1177/01492063231225166. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231225166
  3. Huang, Y., Zeng, C., Pan, W., Wang, R., Yin, Z., Li, Y., & Huang, S. (2026). A Decision Indicator System for Takeoff and Landing Site Selection of Bucket Firefighting Helicopters in Wildfire Emergency Response. Fire, 9(4), 148. DOI: 10.3390/fire9040148. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire9040148
  4. Holdsworth, D., & Zagorecki, A. (2023). A picture paints a thousand words: supporting organizational learning in the emergency services with data visualization. The Learning Organization, 30(2), 231–250. DOI: 10.1108/tlo-01-2022-0001. https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo-01-2022-0001
  5. Yang, Z. (2023). Road Rescue Demand Prediction for the Improvement of Traffic System Resilience. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2023, Article 6648740. DOI: 10.1155/2023/6648740. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6648740
  6. Papathoma-Köhle, M., Schlögl, M., Garlichs, C., Diakakis, M., Mavroulis, S., & Fuchs, S. (2022). A wildfire vulnerability index for buildings. Scientific Reports, 12, Article 6378. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-10479-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10479-3
  7. Prentice, B., Lau, Y.-y., & Ng, A. (2021). Transport Airships for Scheduled Supply and Emergency Response in the Arctic. Sustainability, 13(9), 5301. DOI: 10.3390/su13095301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095301
  8. Kontogiannis, T. (2021). A qualitative model of patterns of resilience and vulnerability in responding to a pandemic outbreak with system dynamics. Safety Science, 134, 105077. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105077
  9. Malakis, S., & Kontogiannis, T. (2023). Team adaptation and safety in aviation. Safety Science, 158, 105985. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105985
  10. Iacovou, M., Kontogiannis, S., & Avgerinakis, K. (2024). Ontology Data Insights and Alerts for Wildfire Protection. Proceedings of the 13th Hellenic Conference on Artificial Intelligence (SETN 2024), 1–6. DOI: 10.1145/3688671.3688737. https://doi.org/10.1145/3688671.3688737
  11. Marotta, S. M., Masucci, V., Kontogiannis, S., & Avgerinakis, K. (2025). From Unified Ontology to Knowledge Base: Data Fusion for Enhanced Wildfire Management. In Intelligent Sustainable Systems (Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, pp. 131–150). Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-97-8695-4_13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-8695-4_13
  12. Sadeghi, A., & Goerlandt, F. (2023). A proposed validation framework for the system theoretic process analysis (STPA) technique. Safety Science, 162, 106080. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106080