Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal

An integrated approach to natural disaster management: Public project management

and its critical success factors
Tun Lin Moe Pairote Pathranarakul
Article information:
To cite this document:
Tun Lin Moe Pairote Pathranarakul, (2006),"An integrated approach to natural disaster management",
Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 3 pp. 396 - 413
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09653560610669882
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

Downloaded on: 24 August 2014, At: 00:40 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4179 times since 2006*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 352589 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0965-3562.htm

DPM
15,3 An integrated approach to natural
disaster management
Public project management and its critical
396 success factors
Tun Lin Moe
School of Management, Shinawatra University,
Pathumthani, Thailand, and
Pairote Pathranarakul
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

National Institute of Development Administration,

Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract
Purpose – With an aim to develop an integrated approach for effectively managing natural disasters,
this paper has three research objectives. First, it provides a framework for effective natural disaster
management from a public project management perspective. Second, it proposes an integrated
approach for successfully and effectively managing disaster crisis. Third, it specifies a set of critical
success factors for managing disaster related public projects.
Design/methodology/approach – A detailed case study of the tsunami was carried out to identify
specific problems associated with managing natural disaster in Thailand.
Findings – The investigations reveal that the country lacked a master plan for natural disaster
management including prediction, warning, mitigation and preparedness, unspecified responsible
governmental authority, unclear line of authority, ineffective collaboration among institutions in
different levels, lack of encouragement for participation of local and international NGOs, lack of
education and knowledge for tsunami in potential disaster effected communities, and lack of
information management or database system.
Research limitations/implications – This study identifies the specific problems associated with
natural disasters management based on a detailed case study of managing tsunami disaster in
Thailand in 2004.
Practical implications – The proposed integrated approach which includes both proactive and
reactive strategies can be applied to managing natural disasters successfully in Thailand.
Originality/value – This paper highlights the importance of having proactive and reactive
strategies for natural disaster management.
Keywords Natural disasters, Tidal waves, Project management, Thailand
Paper type Conceptual paper

Disaster Prevention and Management
Vol. 15 No. 3, 2006
pp. 396-413
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0965-3562
DOI 10.1108/09653560610669882
Introduction
According to the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR, 2002),
there are two main origins of hazards, namely natural and technological disasters.
Natural disasters include three specific groups:
(1) Hydro-meteorological disasters. Including floods and wave surges, storms,
droughts and related disasters (extreme temperatures and forest/scrub fires),
and landslides and avalanches.
 (2) Geophysical disasters. Divided into earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanic Natural disaster
eruptions. management
(3) Biological disasters. Covering epidemics and insect infestations.

The technological disasters comprise three groups, which are:

(1) Industrial accidents. Such as chemical spills; collapses of industrial
infrastructures; explosions; fires, gas leaks; poisoning; radiation. 397
(2) Transport accidents. By air, rail, road or water means of transport.
(3) Miscellaneous accidents. Collapses of domestic/non-industrial structures;
explosions; fires.

Natural disasters, whether of meteorological origin such as cyclones, floods, tornadoes

and droughts or of having geological nature such as earthquakes and volcanoes, are
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

well known for their devastating impacts on human life, economy and environment.
With tropical climate and unstable landforms, coupled with high population density,
poverty, illiteracy and lack of infrastructure development, developing countries are
more vulnerable to suffer from the damaging potential of such disasters (Jayaraman
et al., 1997, p. 291). In the UN/ISDR (2002), the higher level of impact was found in
terms of number of people killed and economic damages due to natural and
technological disasters in developing and least developing countries during 1994 and
2003(Tables I and II). In Thailand, about 28.9 million people have been affected by the
disasters during 1994 and 2003 (UN/ISDR, 2002).
It is commonly agreeable that there is no way of neutralizing all negative impacts
resulted from disasters. However, efforts can be made in order to reduce their impacts.
In this regard, effective disaster management is a key element in good governance

Natural disasters Technological disasters

Development group Hydro-meteorological Geological Biological Technological

OECD 4.465 2.316 0.023 0.910 Table I.

CEE þ CIS 1.085 0.499 0.156 1.374 Average number of
Developing countries 3.719 1.567 0.534 1.502 people killed per million
Least developed countries 3.399 1.386 7.809 3.075 inhabitants in major
world aggregates
Source: ISDR (www.unisdr.org) 1994-2003

Natural disasters Technological disasters

Development Group Hydro-meteorological Geological Biological Technological

OECD 1,82,330.66 2,26,219.76 128.48 5,804.26 Table II.

CEE þ CIS 13,282.49 544.42 0.00 224.80 Total amount of
Developing countries 2,06,600.36 20,449.01 127.77 1,612.52 economic damages
Least developed countries 6,826.91 139.96 4.06 58.94 reported in major world
aggregates 1994-2003
Source: ISDR (www.unisdr.org) (2003 US $ million)
 DPM (UN/ISDR, 2002). Disaster management is interchangeably used with a term
15,3 emergency management. It involves plans, structures, and arrangements established
to engage the normal endeavors of governments, voluntary and private agencies in a
comprehensive and coordinated way to respond to the whole spectrum of emergency
needs. Such activities are carried out in an urgent manner when there is an onset of
disaster occurrence.
398 All activities are centered at governmental departments and agencies. In
addition, it requires planning, organizing, resource mobilizing, and completing
stages (Kelly, 1995), which are similar to public project management. A project is
a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or service while
project management is application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to
project activities to meet project requirements (PMBOKw Guide, 2004, pp. 4 – 6).
Therefore, disaster management comprises of a unique nature of product and
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

services produced, its temporary nature, and its requirement of knowledge, skills
and tools reveal that the disaster management can be explained from a public
project management perspective.
This study’s unique contribution to the knowledge body of public project
management or disaster management is an integrated approach to managing disaster
with a basic goal to minimize effectively the impact of the disaster. In addition, basing
on lessons learned from managing tsunami disaster impacts, which were recently
caused by a hard-hit tsunami in December 2004; the study identifies the problems
associated with disaster management in Thailand. Then, comprehensive
recommendations are made for those concerned authorities and organizations.
The study’s objectives are threefold to:
(1) provide a framework for effective natural disaster management from a public
project management perspective;
(2) propose an integrated approach for successfully and effectively managing
disaster crisis; and
(3) provide a set of critical success factors (CSFs) for managing disaster related
public projects.

This study is organized as follows. The following section reviews a conceptual

framework for disaster management. It is followed by case study of recent tsunami
disaster in Thailand and identification of specific problems. The next section proposes
recommendations for those who are involved in policy making and building
institutional capacity.

Conceptual framework for natural disaster management

What is project management?
A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or services.
Temporary means that every project has a definite beginning and a definite end. A
product or service produced may be unique even if the category to which it belongs is
large.
According to PMBOKw (2004) project management is the application of knowledge,
skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet project requirements. Project
management is accomplished through:
 (1) Initiating. To authorize and define the scope of a new phase or project or that Natural disaster
can result in the continuation of halted project work. management
(2) Planning. To define the mature the project scope, develop the project scope,
develop the project management plan, and identify and schedule the project
activities that occur within the project.
(3) Executing and controlling. To complete the work defined in the project
management plan to accomplish the project’s objectives defined in the project
399
statement.
(4) Closing or completing. To formally terminate all activities of a project or phase
and transfer the completed product to others or close a cancelled project.

The project team manages the work of the projects, and the work typically involves:
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

.
completing demands for scope, time, costs, risks, and quality;
.
stakeholders with differing needs and expectations; and
.
identified requirements.

What is disaster management?

A disaster is a term describing a whole range of distress situations, both individual and
communal. These include fires and drowning, earthquake and tornado, epidemics and
starvation, heat and cold, rats and locusts (Kumar, 2000, p. 72).
There are two types of disasters – exogenous and endogenous. The first refers a
process in which biological, economic and psychosocial distress suffered by one section
of the community, while material gains and social satisfactions accrue to another. The
latter refers to an event in which a community or a society experiences and shares
severe danger, injury and destruction, or disruption of the social structure and essential
function of the society.
Disaster management includes generic five phases, namely:
(1) prediction;
(2) warning;
(3) emergency relief;
(4) rehabilitation; and
(5) reconstruction.

Essential activities include:

.
mitigation and preparedness;
.
response; and
.
recovery are conducted in those phases (Jayaraman et al., 1997).

These phases can be further elaborated by referring to UN/ISDR (2002).

(1) Prediction. In this phase, mitigation and preparedness activities are conducted
in the prediction phase. This includes structural measures undertaken to limit
the adverse impact of natural hazards, environmental degradation and
technological hazards and non-structural measures taken in advance to ensure
 DPM effective response to the impact of hazards, including the issuance of timely and
15,3 effective early warnings and temporary evacuation of people and property from
threatened locations.
(2) Warning. This phase refers to the provision of timely and effective information,
through identified institutions, that allows individuals exposed to a hazard to
take action to avoid or reduce their risk and prepare effective response.
400 (3) Emergency relief. The provision of assistance or intervention during or
immediately after a disaster to meet the life preservation and basic subsistence
needs of those people affected. It can be of immediate, short-term, or protracted
duration.
(4) Rehabilitation. This phase includes decisions and actions taken after a disaster
with a view to restoring or improving the pre-disaster living conditions of the
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

stricken community, while encouraging and facilitating necessary adjustments

to reduce disaster risk.
(5) Reconstruction. This phase includes the essential activities conducted are
mitigation, preparedness activities in prediction phase; response activities in
warning and emergency relief phases; and recovery activities in rehabilitation
and reconstruction phases.
.
Mitigation activities include structural and non-structural measures
undertaken to limit the adverse impact of natural hazards, environmental
degradation and technological hazards.
.
Preparedness include activities and measures taken in advance to ensure
effective response to the impact of hazards, including the issuance of timely
and effective early warnings and the temporary evacuation of people and
properly from threatened locations.
.
Response includes the provision of assistance or intervention during or
immediately after a disaster to meet the life preservation and basic
subsistence needs of those people affected. It can be of an immediate,
short-term, or protracted duration.
.
Recovery includes decisions and actions taken after a disaster with a view to
restoring or improving the pre-disaster living conditions of the stricken
community, while encouraging and facilitating necessary adjustments to
reduce disaster risk.

Similarities of phases between public project management and disaster management

Turner (1993) defines project as an endeavor in which human, material and financial
resources are organized in a novel way, to undertake a unique scope of work, of
given specification, within constraints of cost and time, so as to achieve beneficial
change defined by quantitative and qualitative objectives. The three essential
features are:
(1) It is unique. No project before or after will be exactly the same.
(2) It is undertaken using a novel process. No project before or after will use exactly
the same approach.
(3) It is transient. It has a beginning and an end.
 These features create three pressures: Natural disaster
(1) subject to uncertainty; management
(2) a need for integration; and
(3) undertaken subject to urgency.

Therefore, this study conceptualizes the disaster management as public project

management, which intends to produce unique products, with a novel process, which
401
has beginning and end. There are life cycle phases in such public project management
or disaster management process. A typical project management life cycle consists of
initiation, planning, executing, and completing phases (Maylor, 1999) (Figure 1). In the
typical project management life cycle, the phases of initiating and planning may
include similar activities conducted in prediction phase in disaster related public
project management. Similar to activities conducted in executing phase in the project
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

management, warning, emergency relief, and rehabilitation (short-term) activities as

well as reconstruction (long-term) activities are carried out in the disaster related public
project management. Therefore, a disaster related public project management includes
project life cycle phases of prediction, which includes the initiation and planning which
are required for the predication phase. After onset of disaster occurrence, executing
involves warning, emergency relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. Completion
tasks are done when completing and transferring reconstruction outputs to
stakeholders or clients.

What are differences between public and private projects?

The projects are normally classified according to sources of funds and objectives.
Private projects are usually financed by their clients with an objective of
profit-oriented. In contrast, public project or development projects are aimed at
elevating poverty and living conditions of people Youker (1999). Table III summarizes
differentiating characteristics between public and private projects.

Project Life Cycle Phases Disaster Management Phases Time Activities Approach

Initiation Mitigation
Before

Prediction Pro-active
Preparedness
Planning

Warning
During

Response
Emergency Releif
Executing
Rehabilitation Reactive
(short-term) Figure 1.
After

Recovery A comparison of project

Reconstruction life cycle and disaster
(long-term) management
Completing
 DPM
Dimension Public projects Private projects
15,3
Objectives Economic and social development Various objectives ranging from
including poverty reduction and not-profit construction to new product development
motives
Financing Government funds, or international Company’s own financing or loans
402 funding agencies
Management From identification to operations and Effective management though the project
ex-post evaluation in the life cycle life cycle
Stakeholders Governments, voluntary and private Clients and company stakeholders
agencies
Environments Difficult environments with a lack of Competitive environment with rival
Table III. infrastructure, in short supply of companies taking same initiatives of new
Comparison of public resources, different value and cultures, products or new infrastructures
projects versus private
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

different systems from those of donor development projects

projects countries

Disaster management can be viewed as public project management. First, the source of
funding is mainly come from government and international funding agencies. Second,
the main objective is to not-for-profit oriented with an aim of reconstruction of
infrastructures which are damaged during the disaster, and rehabilitation of effected
communities and natural resources.

Differences between crisis and disaster management

A crisis is a situation faced by an individual, group or organization which they are
unable to cope with by the use of normal routine procedures and in which stress is
created by sudden change (Booth, 1993). Kumar (2000) argues that the second phase of
disaster events includes the emergency and crisis that the community shares the
impact and sufferings. Thus, the crisis term may refer to the event when crisis arises
whereas disaster management covers wider scope of prediction, warning, emergency
relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.

Approaches to disaster management

In our conceptual framework, there are two approaches for disaster management,
namely:
(1) pro-active approach; and
(2) reactive approach.

Activities that are planned and conducted before the disaster impact with an aim to
effectively minimize the adverse impacts of the disasters are called proactive approach.
In contrast, activities of responses and recovery are conducted as reactive approach.

A case study of Thailand’s tsunami disaster management

On 26 December 2004, across Asia, people in coastal areas in the Indian Ocean and the
Andaman Sea were killed by tidal waves caused by the earthquake. They also swept
away a huge chunk of the region’s fishing industry and tourism spots that helped put it
on the world’s travel map. Measured at 8.9 on the Richter scale with its epicentre near
 Sumatra Island, the quake was the most powerful to occur in four decades. The wave Natural disaster
heights were at 5 to 6 meter in Phuket West Coast and 11 meter in Phang Nga at Kao management
Lak. The velocity of attacks was measured at 40 kilometer/hour.
As tidal waves wreak havoc after Sumatra earthquake aftershock in Thailand,
Phuket, Phang Nga, Krabi, Satual, and Ranong including two islands namely Phi Phi
and Lanta were devastated. The giant waves triggered by an earthquake in Indonesia
swept away lives, property and an economy that took decades to build. The Thai 403
government declared a state of emergency in Phuket and declared the area off limits to
visitors. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra left by helicopter on the night of 26
December to inspect the damage and held an emergency meeting with top officials in
Phuket. Ambassadors from 21 countries were also scheduled to leave for the area last
night to help with the evacuation of their nationals (The Nation, 2004). There
were 5,303 dead, 3,498 missing, and 8,457 injured and economic damage accounted for
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

0.03 percent of total GDP. A total of 7,053 houses were damaged.

The main purpose of this session is to critically analyze the experience of managing
disaster; to specify problems; and to study lessons learned form tsunami disaster
management in Thailand. First, there were no activities conducted for prediction,
warning and emergency relief phases that are associated with proactive approach.
Mostly the activities carried out through the disaster management in Thailand were
only associated with parts of emergency relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction.
This case study reveals that there were specific problems encountered in each of the
phases of project life cycle. The main cause of the problems was obviously found that
the country lacked a master plan for disaster management. It was coupled with not
specified responsible unit for handling disaster management in the national level. The
following common problems are found in the disaster management in Thailand.
.
lack of a master plan for disaster management in Thailand;
.
lack of activities for proactive approach including prediction and warning for
disaster occurrences;
.
no specific responsible unit;
.
slow decision making in national level for emergency relief activities;
. unclear line of command from top to provincial level authorities;
.
logistic problems for distributing goods for emergency relief;
.
lack of effective collaboration among institutions in different levels;
.
lack of encouragement for participation of local and international NGOs;
.
lack of education and knowledge for tsunami in potential disaster effected
communities; and
.
lack of information management or database system.

From the experience of tsunami disaster management, it is found that the lack of
proactive approach had caused more damage and dead. The main lesson learned was
to encourage more activities for proactive approach. There was a lead-time of 2 hours
that should be sufficient to evacuate people in the risk prone communities to mitigate
the tsunami. As a result of lack of risk identification system and warning, it had caused
more people dead. After the disaster or post-disaster management process, unclear line
of authorities, and unspecific responsible authority coupled with slow decision process
 DPM had caused delay in carrying out activities (see summaries of problems and lessons
15,3 learned in disaster management in Table IV).

An integrated approach to disaster management

What is an integrated approach?
This study proposes an integrated approach that could be adopted to disaster
404 management in Thailand (Figure 2). The integrated approach includes both proactive
and reactive strategies. The proactive approach requires identification of risk.
Grounding on the risk identified, the activities of:
.
mitigation;
.
preparedness; and
.
partial response in the phases of prediction and warning.
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

Since, these activities are mainly based on identified risk and thus prediction and
estimation of the risk is necessary and critical.
The reactive approach includes assessing impacts and its level. Depending on the
level of impacts from disasters, response and recovery activities can be carried out for
warning, emergency relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction phases in the disaster
management. Thus, the impact assessment is crucial for successful implementation of
the disaster related public project management.

What are activities included in the approach?

Risk identification and assessment is the most critical task in managing disasters
(Uitto, 1998). Its continuous assessment, accuracy, quality of information are important
inputs for effectively minimize negative impact of disasters. The process of conducting
a risk assessment is based on a review of both the technical features of hazards such as
their location, intensity, frequency and probability; and also the analysis of the
physical, social, economic and environmental dimensions of vulnerability and
exposure, while taking particular account of the coping capabilities pertinent to the
risk scenarios. Vulnerability measures the conditions determined by physical, social,
economic, and environmental factors or processes, which increase the susceptibility of
a community to the impact of hazards (UN/ISDR, 2002). Risk identification and
assessment is normally conducted by the key actors of in national, provincial, district,
sub-district, and village levels. The principal key stakeholder of the disaster
management is the governmental unit, namely Department of Mitigation and
Preparedness Center (DMPC). The assessment of impact levels is critical because it can
be used for rehabilitation and reconstruction. The main purposes are to identify
damage level of disasters effected areas and locations in terms of social, economic, and
environmental assessments, to prioritize effected communities for rehabilitation and
reconstruction, and to design and plan for implementation of reconstruction process.
Levels of impacts can be classified into high, medium, and low. Responsible
governmental unit can be in a hierarchal order in:
.
national;
.
provincial; and
.
district, sub-district, and village for high, medium, and low levels of disaster
effected areas, respectively.
 Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

Disaster management
phases Activities conducted Problems identified Lesson learned

Prediction None No risk identification and assessment
No master plan for disaster management
No single agency fully responsible to
overall management
No stand policy and procedure to manage
disasters
Warning None No warning was done
Many people do not know what the
tsunami is
They lacked educational knowledge on
how to escape tsunami
Emergency relief High ranking officials Redundant commands given to
visiting the areas authorities concerned
Conflicts among provincial governors
Confusion and indecisiveness
Long waiting for commands from
supervisors
Lack of proper coordination among
provincial, district, and sub-district
administrative officers, NGOs and
volunteers
There should be a master plan for
managing natural disasters
Application of technology in order to
identify and assess risk, e.g. DART
Mooring System
There should be policy priorities for
disaster management
There was a lead-time of nearly 2 hours
before the tidal waves hit the effected
areas
Otherwise causalities should be
minimized
There should be media such as
televisions, and radio stations
disseminating information on time
Coordination is essential
Line of authority should be clear in such
emergency situations
More collective efforts should be made
(continued)
management
Natural disaster

learned from managing

Problems and lessons

Thailand
recent natural disaster in
405

Table IV.
 Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)
Table IV.
Disaster management
phases Activities conducted
Donations and supplies were
mobilized to the effected areas
Ministries concerned approved
emergency funds withdrawal
Rehabilitation MOI appointed an expert for forensic
treatment and investigation of dead
bodies in Phang Nga on 29 December
2004 at 11:00 am
MOI appointed Royal Thai Police as the
lead agency in forensic treatment and
investigation of dead bodies for all
provinces on 5 January 2005 8:00 am
Prime Minister assigned Minister of
Interior in Phuket, Minister of Natural
Resources in Phang Nga, Deputy
Minister of Interior in Krabi, and Deputy
Prime Minister in Ranong on 26
December
PM also assigned Minister and Deputy
Minister of Interior and Director General
of Department of Disaster Prevention to
set up relief operation center
Problems identified
Problems associated with logistics,
database management,
telecommunications, and transportation
Ministry of Finance approved emergency There should be faster action for
withdrawal on 28 December 14:00
Ministry of Interior (MOI) still discussed
possibility of emergency fund
withdrawal on 29 December
Conflict between an expert and police
department
Redundant in investigation of dead
bodies
Many different ministries are taking
control of the same kind of operations
It results in conflict among governmental
departments
15,3
406
DPM
Lesson learned
Logistics plan should be drawn before
Database management system should be
installed for effective distribution of
supplies
emergency funds withdrawal
There should be clear responsible unit for
such kind of investigation associated
with disasters
There should be one centralized authority
who could be in command for handling
rehabilitation activities
For example, Department of Disaster
Prevention and Mitigation under MOI
should be fully responsible and fully
authorized
(continued)
 Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

Disaster management
phases Activities conducted Problems identified Lesson learned

Natural resources and community based Lack of proper coordination on There should have been a master plan for
rehabilitation activities rehabilitation efforts local rehabilitation
Lack of holistic and integrated local More collective actions should be taken in
rehabilitation plan making efforts for rehabilitation
Participatory approach for long-term
sustainable development
Reconstruction Reconstruction projects are initiated and Clear goals and relevant information are Critical success factors for project
being implemented not included management for reconstruction were
Each phases of project life cycle, design, unaware
procurement, implementation, operation, Lack of competencies of project
and maintenance lack clear goals and managers
specific information Lack of coordination among different
levels of institutions
Lack of client participation
Sources: Tingsanchali (2005) and Pongquan (2005)
management
Natural disaster

407

Table IV.
 DPM Project Life Cycle Disaster Management
Time Activities Legend Actors
Phases Phases
15,3
National DMPC

Proactive Approach
Risk Identification
Initiation Mitigation

Before
Provincial DMPC
Prediction
District DMPC
Preparedness
Planning Sub-District DMPC
Village DMPC
408 Warning

During
Response

Impact Assessment & Level

High
Emergency Releif National DMPC

Reactive Approach
Executing

Medium
Rehabilitation
(short-term) Provincial DMPC

After
Recovery
Reconstruction District DMPC
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

Figure 2.

Low
(long-term) Sub-District DMPC
Level of crisis impacts and Completing Village DMPC
key actors
Note: DMPC= Department of Mitigation and Prevention Committee

What are gains from the integrated approach?

Managing disasters with the integrated approach can receive valuable gains. First, the
proactive approach allows mitigation, preparedness, and warning for disasters before
they take place. Natural hazards are normally classified by their onset time. Some are
slow-onset and provide lead-time for mitigative action. Slow-onset hazards include
droughts, floods and volcanic eruptions. Other events, such as flash floods, tsunamis
and cyclones, provide little or no lead-time for mitigation and preparedness measures
or appropriate warnings. Sufficient lead-time increases the potential for saving lives,
livestock, property and livelihoods of a population at risk. These potentials can be
realized as gains when proactive approach is adopted (Table V).

What are critical success factors for successful disaster management?

This disaster management can be conceived as a public project management in which
the government is the key stakeholder. There are many challenges ahead of the
adoption of the integrated approach in the project management. To complete project
successfully, some CSFs must be taken into consideration thorough the project life
cycle phases. The project success factors are the circumstances, facts, or influences that
are inputs into management systems and can directly or indirectly affect the outcomes
of a project (Lim and Mohamed, 1999; Cooke-Davies, 2002). There are ten CSFs that
must be carefully taken into considerations in managing disasters. They are as follows:
(1) Effective institutional arrangement. The effective institutional arrangement is
necessary for adopting the integrated approach. And lack of responsible
governmental unit will lead to unclear line of authority and delay in
decision-making process especially for emergency relief and rehabilitation. The
principal responsible government department must be specified and the specific
responsible unit must be fully authorized for disaster management in a national
level.
(2) Coordination and collaboration. The effective coordination and collaboration is
also critical in successfully managing disasters. There are five different levels of
coordination and collaboration among key stakeholders, namely international,
 Natural disaster
Lead-time Value of lead-time
management
Slow-onset natural hazards
Drought 3-6 months Crops/agriculture/water management, food security
Revering flood 3-5 days Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to
safe havens
Volcanic eruption 48 hours Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to 409
safe havens
Quick-onset natural hazards
Flash-flood 6-18 hours Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to
safe havens
Tsunami (local) 5 mins Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to
high ground
Tsunami (distant) 3 hours Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

high ground
Storm/cyclone 48 hours Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to
safe havens
Landslide 1-2 hours Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to
safe havens
Tornado 1-12 hours Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to Table V.
safe havens Lead-time and their
values for disaster
Source: APDC (2005) management

national, regional, organizational, and project level. Lack of coordination among

different level of organizations, including governmental agencies, NGOs,
International NGOs, donors was found as common problem (Charoenngam and
Leungbootnak, 2005).
(3) Supportive laws and regulations. The supportive laws and regulations will have
positive impact on outcomes of disaster management. There were 34 laws that
are related to disasters in Thailand. With such different laws for set for different
organizations, and without enforcing them, organizations face role and line of
authority confusions (Tingsanchali, 2005). Therefore, supportive laws and
regulations must be established and they must be enforced so that it will create
enabling environment for managing disasters.
(4) Effective information management system. Another common problem
associated with the management of disasters is lack of essential information
among key stakeholders (Charoenngam and Leungbootnak, 2005). This
information is vital for planning, early warning, and rehabilitation and
reconstruction. Therefore, effective information management system and
sharing vital information among key stakeholders are necessary for successful
outcomes of the disaster management.
(5) Competencies of managers and team members. Disaster preparedness will not
be effective without the participation of the vulnerable community or target
beneficiaries (Newport and Jawahar, 2003, p. 33). The disaster management
plan managing disasters is usually done by individual project managers and
project team members. Their administrative, conceptual, and technical skills are
important for planning, implementing, and managing disaster projects
 DPM successfully. They can be provided with effective development training to
15,3 increase competencies or organizations can select people with high competence.
(6) Effective consultation with key stakeholders and target beneficiaries. Participation
of the clients or target beneficiaries is critical for ensuring successful outcomes.
Effective consultation of the project planners with, and among, the key project
stakeholders, namely donors, local authorities, implementing agency, target
410 beneficiaries in order to formulate an acceptable project strategy and action plan.
(7) Effective communication mechanism. Project success is strongly linked to
communication and co-operation between stakeholders. Trust resulting from
effective communication between the task managers and the coordinator is the
key success factor whereas team cohesion is the second most important factor
for project success. In other words, such effective communication is described
as a collaborative working relationship. It should be maintained between the
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

project owner and project manager, with both viewing the project as a
partnership (Turner and Muller, 2004). Thus, effective communication
mechanisms must be established among key stakeholders.
(8) Clearly defined goals and commitments by key stakeholders. It is common in
international development project that project team management and
stakeholders lack commitment (Youker, 1999; Daillo and Thuillier, 2004). A
project having clear and exact goal(s) with clearly stated purpose which is
accepted by all involved in the efforts, and with having their views are
integrated and a clear final date of completion is strongly and significantly
relate to project success, find that clear goal and objectives are the most
important CSF in their study which captured the “real world” experiences of
people active in project management. Thus, project goals must be clearly
defined. And key stakeholders must share agreement and commit to them.
(9) Effective logistics management. Effective logistics management is necessary
before, during, and after the disasters. Most transportation problems stem from
transportation bottlenecks, lack of coordination for relief works, and poor
national transport infrastructures (port, road, rail, and air). Disaster logistics
include people, expertise, and technology. Employing a new technology such as
geographic information system and remote sensing tools can enhance capacity
to coordinate among organizations for more effective logistics management.
(10) Sufficient mobilization and disbursement of resources. A resource planning
determines what resources (people, equipment, and materials) are needed in
what quantities to perform project activities (PMBOKw Guide, 2004). One of the
most commonly found problems associate with projects is ”shortage of
resources”. Lack of adequate resources and poor or no analysis of major risk
factors can lead to a number of problems resulting in termination and
suspension of the project (Youker, 1999; Diallo and Thuillier, 2004). “Adequate
funds/resources” is found as one of the most CSFs in practice.

Conclusions
This study has proposed an integrated approach for disaster management. The integrated
approach includes both proactive and reactive strategies aimed for disaster management
before, during and after periods. Disaster management can be conceived as public project
 management. Similar project life cycle phases are compared between the disaster Natural disaster
management and project management. It is common that many developing countries, which management
are mostly prone to disaster lack proactive strategies for early warning, mitigation and
preparedness. When disaster occurs, without the proactive approach, severe damages and
devastation resulted in. The last tsunami, which caused many people dead and lost of
natural and personal property, has always reminded people of their careless mistakes for
disaster risk management. With the integrated approach, lives of many people can be saved. 411
This study analyzes and specifies the problems and discusses the lessons learned from the
recent case study of tsunami in the country. To successfully adopt the integrated approach,
the set of CSFs identified should be carefully considered for effective disaster management.
Above all, the principal stakeholder of the disaster management is the government. Thus,
motive and commitment of those political leaders and their willingness to adopt the
proposed integrated approach is critical for saving people’s lives, natural resources, and
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

personal property and promoting sustainability for disasters prone areas in the country.

References
Booth, S.A. (1993), Crisis Management Strategy – Competition and Change in Modern
Enterprises, Routledge, London.
Charoenngam, C. and Leungbootnak, N. (2005), “Post-tsunami disaster reconstruction management:
a case study of Thailand”, working paper, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002), “The ‘real’ success factors on projects”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 20, pp. 185-90.
Diallo, A. and Thuillier, D. (2004), “The success dimensions of international development
projects: the perceptions of African project coordinators”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 22, pp. 19-31.
Jayaraman, V., Chandrasekhar, M.G. and Rao, U.R. (1997), “Managing the natural disasters from
space technology inputs”, Acta Astronautica, Vol. 40 Nos 2/8, pp. 291-325.
Kelly, C. (1995), “A framework for improving operational effectiveness and cost efficiency in
emergency planning and response”, Disaster Prevention and Management., Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 25-35.
Kumar, G.S.J. (2000), “Disaster management and social development”, International Journal of
Sociology & Social Policy, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 66-81.
Lim, C.S. and Mohamed, M.Z. (1999), “Criteria of project success”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 243-8.
Maylor, H. (1999), Project Management, Financial Times Management, London.
Newport, J.K. and Jawahar, G.G.P. (2003), “Community participation and public awareness in
disaster mitigation”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 33-6.
Pongquan, S. (2005), “Natural resources and community based rehabilitation”, paper presented at
Seminar on the Presentation of Findings by AIT Team of Experts on Tsunami Affected
Areas in the South of Thailand, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 19 January,
available at: http://tsunami.ait.ac.th/TsunamiAreas.html
Project Management Boday of Knowledge Guide Book (2004), Project Management Institute,
Newtown Square, PA.
The Nation (2004), English daily newspaper in Thailand. 27 December, www.nationmultimedia.com
Tingsanchali, T. (2005), “Tsunami attacks and disaster management”, paper presented at
Seminar on the Presentation of Findings by AIT Team of Experts on Tsunami Affected
 DPM Areas in the South of Thailand, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 19 January,
available at: http://tsunami.ait.ac.th/TsunamiAreas.html
15,3 Turner, J.R. and Muller, R. (2004), “Communication and co-operation on projects between the
project owner as principal and the project manager as agent”, European Management
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 327-36.
Turner, J.R. (1993), The Handbook of Project Based Management, McGraw-Hill, London.
412 Uitto, J.I. (1998), “The geography of disaster vulnerability in megacities: a theoretical
framework”, Applied Geography, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 7-16.
UN/ISDR (2002), “Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives”, Preliminary
version prepared as an interagency effort coordinated by the ISDR Secretariat, Geneva.
Youker, R. (1999), “Managing international development projects: lessons learned”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 6-7.
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

Further reading
Abbasi, G.Y. and Al-Mharmah, H.A. (2000), “Project management practice by the public sector in
a developing Country”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18, pp. 105-9.
Christine, M. et al., (1993), “From crisis prone to crisis prepared: a framework for crisis
management”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 48-59.
Klein, R.J.T. et al., (2003), “Resilience to natural hazards: how useful is this concept?”,
Environmental Hazards, Vol. 5, pp. 35-45.
Kwak, Y.H. (2002), “Critical success factors in international development project management”,
Conference Proceedings of CIB 10th International Symposium Construction Innovation &
Global Competitiveness, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 9-13, pp. 1-7.
Loosemore, M. (1998), “The three ironies of crisis management in construction projects”,
International Journal of Project Management., Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 139-44.
May, P.J. (1982), “Formulating disaster relief when needs are unknown”, Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Mitchell, J.K. (1999), “Megacities and natural disasters: a comparative analysis”, Geo Journal,
Vol. 49, pp. 137-42.
Paton, D. (2003), “Disaster preparedness: a social-cognitive perspective”, Disaster Prevention and
Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 210-6.
Paudel, P.P. et al., (2003), “Landside damage and disaster management system in Nepal”, Vol. 12
No. 5, pp. 413-9.
Tingsanchali, T. (n.d.), “Improvement of water-related disaster management in Thailand”,
working paper, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.
Zhang, J. et al., (2003), “Flood disaster monitoring and evaluation in China”, Environmental
Hazards., Vol. 4, pp. 33-43.

About the authors

Tun Lin Moe is a Faculty Member of School of Management, Shinawatra University, Thailand.
He was a postdoctoral fellow of Asian Institute of Technology at the School of Management.
Holding an MA in Business Management from the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce
(UTCC), Bangkok, Thailand and a PhD in Development Administration majoring in
Development Management from National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA),
Bangkok, Thailand, he is currently teaching graduate courses in management at Shinawatra
 University. His research interests cover subject areas in the development management such as Natural disaster
international development projects management, public private partnership project
management, disaster project management and managerial networking. Tun Lin Moe is the management
corresponding author and can be contacted at: tunlinmoe@shinawatra.ac.th
Pairote Pathranarakul is Associate Dean for Planning and Development Affairs at the School
of Public Administration, National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), Bangkok,
Thailand. Holding an MPA (Hons) in Public Policy and Project Management, School of Public
Administration, NIDA and a PhD in Regional and Rural Development Planning, Asian Institute 413
of Technology, he currently teaches graduate courses in management and project management
courses at NIDA.
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Marini Othman, Mohammad Nazir Ahmad, Azizah Suliman, Noor Habibah Arshad, Siti Sarah Maidin.
2014. COBIT principles to govern flood management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
9, 212-223. [CrossRef]
2. Idris Aida, Nizam Che Soh Saiful. 2014. Determinants of HADR mission success: exploring the experience
of the Malaysian army. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 23:4, 455-468.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Mohammad H. Mojtahedi S., Lan Oo Bee. 2014. Stakeholders’ approaches to disaster risk reduction
in built environment. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 23:4, 356-369.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Siti Hajar Othman, Ghassan Beydoun, Vijayan Sugumaran. 2014. Development and validation of
a Disaster Management Metamodel (DMM). Information Processing & Management 50:2, 235-271.
[CrossRef]
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

5. Bingunath Ingirige (1) and Keith Jones (2) Dr, Crawford Lynn, Langston Craig, Bajracharya Bhishna.
2013. Participatory project management for improved disaster resilience. International Journal of Disaster
Resilience in the Built Environment 4:3, 317-333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Doocy Shannon, Russell Evan, Gorokhovich Yuri, Kirsch Thomas. 2013. Disaster preparedness and
humanitarian response in flood and landslide-affected communities in Eastern Uganda. Disaster Prevention
and Management: An International Journal 22:4, 326-339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Taufika Ophiyandri, Dilanthi Amaratunga, Chaminda Pathirage, Kaushal Keraminiyage. 2013. Critical
success factors for community‐based post‐disaster housing reconstruction projects in the pre‐construction
stage in Indonesia. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 4:2, 236-249.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Jaime Santos-Reyes, Alan N. Beard. 2013. Information Communication Technology and a Systemic
Disaster Management System Model. International Journal of Distributed Systems and Technologies 2:1,
29-42. [CrossRef]
9. John Lindström, Dan Harnesk, Elina Laaksonen, Marko Niemimaa. 2012. A Methodology for Inter-
Organizational Emergency Management Continuity Planning. International Journal of Information Systems
for Crisis Response and Management 2:4, 1-19. [CrossRef]
10. Sander Leeuw, Iris F. A. Vis, Sebastiaan N. Jonkman. 2012. Exploring Logistics Aspects of Flood
Emergency Measures. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 20:3, 166-179. [CrossRef]
11. Bevaola Kusumasari, Quamrul Alam. 2012. Local wisdom‐based disaster recovery model in Indonesia.
Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 21:3, 351-369. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
12. Pauliina Palttala, Camillo Boano, Ragnhild Lund, Marita Vos. 2012. Communication Gaps in Disaster
Management: Perceptions by Experts from Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations. Journal
of Contingencies and Crisis Management 20:1, 2-12. [CrossRef]
13. Pauliina Palttala, Marita Vos. 2012. Quality Indicators for Crisis Communication to Support Emergency
Management by Public Authorities. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 20:1, 39-51.
[CrossRef]
14. Bevaola Kusumasari, Quamrul Alam. 2012. Bridging the gaps: the role of local government capability and
the management of a natural disaster in Bantul, Indonesia. Natural Hazards 60:2, 761-779. [CrossRef]
 15. Gayani KarunasenaSustainable Post-Disaster Waste Management: Construction and Demolition Debris
251-267. [CrossRef]
16. Krisanthi SeneviratneCapacity of the Construction Industry for Post-Disaster Reconstruction: Post-
Tsunami Sri Lanka 30-50. [CrossRef]
17. Pablo Maya Duque, Kenneth Sörensen. 2011. A GRASP metaheuristic to improve accessibility after a
disaster. OR Spectrum 33:3, 525-542. [CrossRef]
18. Krisanthi Seneviratne, David Baldry, Chaminda Pathirage. 2010. Disaster knowledge factors in managing
disasters successfully. International Journal of Strategic Property Management 14:4, 376-390. [CrossRef]
19. Bevaola Kusumasari, Quamrul Alam, Kamal Siddiqui. 2010. Resource capability for local government
in managing disaster. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 19:4, 438-451.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Victoria Hardy, Kathy O. Roper, Suzanne Kennedy. 2009. Emergency preparedness and disaster recovery
in the US post 9/11. Journal of Facilities Management 7:3, 212-223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Arizona State University At 00:40 24 August 2014 (PT)

21. Courtney M. Page. 2009. International Actors Leading in Relief Efforts: 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Aid
Assessment. Asian Politics & Policy 1:3, 435-462. [CrossRef]
22. Vinnie Jauhari, Richa Malhotra, Umashankar Venkatesh. 2009. Pre‐crisis period planning: lessons for
hospitality and tourism. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 1:1, 66-74. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
23. M.E. Baris. 2009. Effectiveness of Turkish Disaster Management System and Recommendations.
Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 23, 1391-1398. [CrossRef]
24. Benoit Robert, Renaud De Calan, Luciano Morabito. 2008. Modelling interdependencies among critical
infrastructures. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 4:4, 392. [CrossRef]
25. Tun Lin Moe, Fritz Gehbauer, Stefan Senitz, Marc Mueller. 2007. Balanced scorecard for natural disaster
management projects. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 16:5, 785-806.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Marcia Perry. 2007. Natural disaster management planning. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 37:5, 409-433. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Jaime Santos-Reyes, Alan N. BeardInformation Communication Technology and a Systemic Disaster
Management System Model 294-308. [CrossRef]
28. John Lindström, Dan Harnesk, Elina Laaksonen, Marko NiemimaaA Methodology for Inter-
Organizational Emergency Management Continuity Planning 197-215. [CrossRef]