Government Information Quarterly 41 (2024) 101910

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf

Characterizing technology affordances, constraints, and coping strategies

for information dissemination to the public: Insights from emergency
messaging in US local governments
Tzuhao Chen a, b, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia a, b, c, *, G. Brian Burke b, Alessandria Dey b,
Derek Werthmuller b
a
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, USA
b
Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, USA
c
Business School, Universidad de las Americas Puebla, Cholula, Mexico

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Disseminating information to the public is critical in emergency management. Thanks to technological advances
Information dissemination in recent decades, governments can instantly reach citizens through multiple channels. Existing research on
Technology affordance emergency messaging indicates that the effectiveness of messaging depends on multiple factors, including re­
Technology constraint
ceivers’ characteristics, message content and style, as well as the social and political contexts. However, what is
Alert
still missing in the literature is a better understanding of the role of technology use for emergency messaging,
Warning
Emergency communication particularly in local governments. Based on the Technology Affordances and Constraints Theory (TACT) and a
Practice theory practice perspective, we analyzed interview data from eighteen local emergency management agencies in the
United States to investigate four questions: (1) what digital artifacts are used for writing and sending messages?
(2) how do the artifacts afford emergency managers in writing and sending messages? (3) what are the con­
straints that impede effective messaging? and (4) how do governments cope with those difficulties? We find four
types of artifacts involved in emergency messaging, their affordances, and constraints, as well as some strategies
for mitigating negative impacts. The findings extend current knowledge about emergency messaging from the
point of view of front-line staff and add insights into the TACT.

1. Introduction increasing trend of delivering emergency messages to the public’s mo­

bile devices through cell broadcast technology, such as the Wireless
Informing at-risk citizens about natural, human-caused, or techno­ Emergency Alerts (WEA) system in the U.S., which was created in 2012
logical emergencies is of utmost importance to save lives and reduce by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal
damage. Issuing emergency messages serves as a primary means for Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). After several modifications
governments to communicate with citizens. Rapid advances in infor­ over the years, currently, a WEA message with either 90 or 360 char­
mation and communication technologies (ICTs) over the last few de­ acters can be sent by authorized national, state, and local governments
cades have considerably expanded emergency management agencies’ for various purposes, including national emergency, imminent threats,
ability to promptly reach more audiences. For instance, governments public safety, AMBER, and opt-in testing (FEMA, 2023). The system has
worldwide nowadays utilize social media platforms – such as Twitter become widely used for many disasters across the United States.
and Facebook – to send out emergency messages for a myriad of hazards Recent research on emergency messaging has provided valuable in­
(Sutton et al., 2015; Sutton & Kuligowski, 2019). Social media enables sights into several crucial aspects, including message content, message
the message to rapidly circulate among the population, raising their style, audience characteristics, and, more importantly, receivers’ in­
awareness and advising necessary protective actions (Sutton et al., 2014; terpretations and behavioral actions derived from the messages (e.g.,
Vieweg, Hughes, Starbird, & Palen, 2010). In addition, there is an Bean et al., 2015; Cao, Boruff, & McNeill, 2017; Casteel & Downing,

* Corresponding author at: Department of Public Administration and Policy, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, State University
of New York, 135 Western Avenue, Milne Hall 317, Albany, NY 12203, USA.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.R. Gil-Garcia).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101910
Received 3 December 2022; Received in revised form 15 December 2023; Accepted 20 January 2024
Available online 27 January 2024
0740-624X/© 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
T. Chen et al. Government Information Quarterly 41 (2024) 101910

2016; DeYoung, Sutton, Farmer, Neal, & Nichols, 2019; Kim et al., 2019; that the public needs to know, helping convey what the hazard is, where
Mileti & Peek, 2000; Mileti & Sorensen, 1990), which are vital to the impacted area is, what actions they should take, when the warning is
determine whether a message is effective. However, although these effective, and where the message comes from. In addition to these
studies collectively identified a variety of factors that influence the fundamental components, some studies explored the potential of adding
effectiveness of emergency messages, little is known from the perspec­ other elements into the message, such as map and URL, to increase its
tive of emergency management agencies and their staff. In particular, information richness (Bean et al., 2014; Cao et al., 2017; Liu et al.,
while technology plays a vital role in writing and sending emergency 2017). Finally, the length of message content also receives considerable
messages, surprisingly, there is not much literature examining how attention in the literature. Each message delivery platform has a unique
governments use technology in creating and delivering those messages. requirement regarding the maximum number of characters a message
As more digital artifacts have become available for governments to write can contain (e.g., 90 c and 360 c for WEA messages, 280 c for Twitter). It
and send out messages (e.g., mass notification systems, social media, has been found that longer and shorter messages may have varying
etc.), governments are increasingly more reliant on technology. There­ implications for their effectiveness (Bean et al., 2014; Sutton, Vos,
fore, it is crucial to understand some of the pros and cons of these ar­ Wood, & Turner, 2018).
tifacts, which, in our view, also partly accounts for whether and how the The second important aspect of emergency messaging in terms of
message could be effectively and efficiently disseminated to the target characteristics of messages is message style, which refers to how the
audience. information is expressed to the public. It is argued that how something is
This study attempts to start filling the gaps mentioned above. Our said affects how people interpret and respond to the emergency mes­
investigation is guided by the Technology Affordances and Constraints sages (Bean et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2018). Researchers have identified
Theory (TACT), which emphasizes that one cannot understand the uses several criteria for evaluating message style. To maximize its effective­
and impacts of information systems on organizational goals without ness, the information in the message should be clear, specific, accurate,
observing the interactions between the actors and the used digital arti­ certain, and consistent (Bean et al., 2015). Besides, punctuation and
facts (Goldkuhl, 2020; Majchrzak & Markus, 2013; Senyo, Effah, & formality of the language have an impact on the message’s credibility, as
Osabutey, 2021). The theory suggests that digital artifacts could afford perceived by the receivers (Kim et al., 2019).
actors in fulfilling a desired goal; however, there may be some circum­ As far as the message content, it is suggested that including a map in
stances where artifacts are prevented from realizing their full potential. a message does not seem to increase people’s perceptions of risk and
Such affordances and constraints depend on the actors’ use experiences severity (Casteel & Downing, 2016) and only has a marginal effect on
and perceptions and, therefore, may vary from one organization to improving message understanding (Liu et al., 2017). Additionally,
another and across individuals. Based on these premises and concepts of longer messages with more details are associated with higher compli­
TACT, this paper attempts to answer four interrelated questions related ance with the recommended protective action (Sutton et al., 2018; Wood
to the government’s use of technology for writing and sending emer­ et al., 2018). As for message style, Kim et al. (2019) indicate that re­
gency messages: (1) what digital artifacts are used for writing and sending ceivers tend to consider messages with lay language and no punctuation
messages? (2) how do the artifacts afford government authorities in the less credible.
messaging process? (3) what are the constraints that impede effective
messaging? and (4) how do governments cope with those difficulties? By 2.2. Interaction between messages and their audience
examining the practices of emergency messaging carried out by emer­
gency managers, our study contributes to the understanding of emer­ Regarding the second theme, a vast number of studies offer detailed
gency messaging from the perspective of frontline message senders. accounts of how the public understands and responds to received mes­
Additionally, we aim to make a theoretical contribution by offering sages. Two models have been created in this regard to capture the sig­
empirical evidence on how actors address the identified constraints nificant factors shaping people’s perceptions, their decision-making
when disseminating information to the public. process, and subsequent behavioral outcomes after getting an emer­
The rest of the article is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly re­ gency message. One approach, the Warning Response Model, was
views the literature on emergency messaging in the U.S. Next, Section 3 established by Mileti and Sorensen (1990). The model depicts the pub­
introduces the theoretical lens that we apply in our empirical investi­ lic’s warning response as a sequence: a receiver first hears the warning,
gation. Section 4 describes our research design and methods, including then understands the message contents, believes its credibility and ac­
how data was collected and analyzed. Section 5 presents the findings curacy, personalizes the warning, and lastly takes protective actions.
regarding the digital artifacts involved in emergency messaging, the Further, the model identifies that the warning response process is
affordances and constraints of those artifacts, and some common coping moderated by the design of the message, including the content and style,
strategies developed by local government managers. Section 6 discusses as well as receiver characteristics, which comprehensively cover envi­
the findings and compares them with the existing literature. Finally, ronmental, social, psychological, and physiological attributes (Kim
Section 7 offers some conclusions, shows some limitations of the study, et al., 2019; Sutton & Kuligowski, 2019).
and suggests areas for future research about this topic. In a similar vein, Lindell and Perry (2012) propose the Protective
Action Decision Model, which offers a different perspective to explain
2. Emergency messaging in the United States the receiver’s perceptions and behaviors. In their approach, environ­
mental cues, social cues, information sources, channel access and pref­
The extant research on emergency messaging has focused on two erence, emergency messages, and receiver characteristics are linked to
primary themes: characteristics of the messages and interactions be­ the pre-decision processes, including exposure, attention, and compre­
tween messages and their audience. hension. Such processes then shape an audience’s perceptions of threats,
protective action, and stakeholders, leading to their response decisions,
2.1. Characteristics of the messages which could be categorized by information search, protective response,
and emotion-focused coping. These two theoretical models jointly
Regarding the first theme, scholars have revealed two crucial char­ generated valuable insights into whether and how the public reacts to
acteristics of emergency messages: message content and message style. emergency messages (Kim et al., 2019; Sutton & Kuligowski, 2019).
In a thorough review of studies on emergency messages, Bean et al.
(2015) point out five information elements that are typically included in 2.3. The Receiver’s and the Sender’s perspectives
a message – the information about the hazard, location, guidance, time,
and source. These components encompass the most crucial questions A series of empirical studies have been conducted to examine the

2
T. Chen et al. Government Information Quarterly 41 (2024) 101910

potential relations among factors, perceptions, and outcomes suggested object independent from the users, and thus the features are determin­
by existing models. In terms of receiver characteristics, research shows istic in nature and universal to every user, the theory holds the premise
that receivers’ demographic factors (e.g., age, socioeconomic status, that the best way to characterize the use of technology is to investigate
gender, and education level), their roles of responsibility within and how technology is “perceived” and “actually utilized” by users. Hence,
outside the family, personal experience of prior disasters, beliefs about the interactions between people and technology lie at the core of the
the hazard and geography, and the activities they are engaged in when theory. According to Majchrzak and Markus (2013), the value of this
receiving a message have a considerable impact (Bean et al., 2015; Kim premise is that it helps explain two common empirical observations. The
et al., 2019; Kuligowski, 2020). Regarding the receivers’ cognitive and first is that users do not always realize the potential of the technology
emotional responses to emergency messages, DeYoung et al. (2019) find when they use it. Second, users sometimes may use technology in ways
that the dread, fear, and anxiety upon receiving a message lead the that designers never anticipated. The theory’s emphasis on the de-facto
people to seek more information from others, so-called “social milling,” utilization of technology can help bridge these potential gaps and
to make sense of the threat and figure out what actions they need to take. comprehend the true impacts of technology.
Also, people will evaluate the credibility of the emergency message by The TACT is comprised of four key concepts: goal-oriented actors,
looking for environmental cues around them, such as sounds and sights digital artifacts, technology affordances, and technology constraints.
(DeYoung et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019; Kuligowski, 2020). First, goal-oriented actors are individuals or groups who can perceive
As our brief overview of the literature shows, most of the studies deal and use digital artifacts towards achieving organizational goals (Effah,
with emergency messages from the receiver’s perspective. Admittedly, Amankwah-Sarfo, & Boateng, 2021). Second, digital artifacts refer to the
since the primary goal of emergency messaging is to notify the at-risk technology objects with capabilities to address a need (Senyo et al.,
public and prevent them from harm, it is impossible to design and 2021). Third, technology affordances can be conceptualized as the
deliver effective messages without the necessary knowledge about the guiding and enabling properties inherent to a digital artifact external to
target audience. Nevertheless, as emergency messages are pushed by human actors, yet fundamentally relational to the actors (Goldkuhl,
emergency management agencies and their individual staff members, 2020; Mora, Kummitha, & Esposito, 2021). There are two primary as­
they also play a vital role in determining whether to send a message and pects of affordances: (1) the informative aspect, which provides guid­
how to design the content. Moreover, government agencies are ance to the actor in choosing and evaluating actions, and (2) the
embedded in a larger context with varying organizational, technolog­ executable aspect, which enables the actor to perform the actions
ical, managerial, and political opportunities and challenges. Therefore, (Goldkuhl, 2008; Hartson, 2003). Fourth, on the other hand, technology
these factors will influence the way emergency management agencies constraints refer to (1) the lack of informative capability of the artifact
engage in emergency messaging and disseminate information to the and the actor’s perception of it, and (2) the artifact’s actual inexecutable
public. Accordingly, in our view, it is also necessary to take a message characteristics and the actor’s inability to execute them (Goldkuhl,
sender’s viewpoint and investigate the dynamics within governments in 2020). In essence, technology affordances indicate what an actor can do
order to gain a more holistic picture of emergency messaging. with a digital artifact, whereas technology constraints delineate the
With this goal, our study seeks to complement the current knowledge ways in which an actor can be held back from accomplishing a particular
by studying the use of technology for composing and sending emergency goal when using a digital artifact (Majchrzak & Markus, 2013).
messages. One key reason for examining the technological use is that The TACT has been widely utilized to empirically evaluate cases of
emergency management agencies have relied on technology to deliver digital transformation in the public sector worldwide and across varying
messages for a long time. In the past, they rely on traditional platforms areas such as social media (Chen, Xu, Cao, & Zhang, 2016), digitized and
such as radio, TV, and sirens to notify the public. On top of those, more smart service systems (Effah et al., 2021; Goldkuhl, 2020; Sarwar &
recently, plenty of mass notification systems and social media platforms Harris, 2019; Senyo et al., 2021), and pandemic control tools (Mora
have been utilized to reach different audiences. Aside from sending et al., 2021). In general, these studies identify the digital artifacts used in
messages, technology also matters for writing the message and specific organizations, their potential and actual affordances and effects,
exchanging information among different public sector agencies; for as well as the mechanisms accounting for the gaps between the two. In
example, the communication between the sheriff in the field and particular, research indicated that the discrepancies could result from a
emergency managers in the office. Consequently, understanding how variety of individual and organizational factors, such as personal values,
emergency managers use these digital artifacts and the opportunities managerialism, bureaucratic authoritarianism, leadership, training, rule
and challenges posed by the artifacts is of critical importance and will compliance, transparency, and accountability (Goldkuhl, 2020; Mora
provide valuable insights for theory and practice. et al., 2021; Sarwar & Harris, 2019). Moreover, these factors not only
affect the de-facto use of digital artifacts but also have a tremendous
3. Theoretical lens: technology affordances and constraints impact on citizens, for instance, by deciding an applicant’s eligibility for
a public service (Sarwar & Harris, 2019).
The Technology Affordances and Constraints Theory (TACT) was The TACT provides an excellent theoretical lens for addressing our
developed based on an action-theoretical basis. It is closely related to the research questions regarding the support or hindrance of emergency
Affordance Theory, which was originally introduced by Gibson (1978) messaging through digital artifacts, in comparison to other theories
in ecological psychology as a theory of ecological perception. Over time, exploring the use of technology. For instance, while the Technology-
scholars from various fields, including human-computer interaction Organization-Environment (TOE) framework and Diffusion of Innova­
(such as Norman, 1988) and information systems research, have utilized tion (DOI) theory are valuable in understanding why agencies adopt a
the theory to study the use of technology. Through these scholarly ef­ technology and identifying its positive impacts (i.e., technology or
forts, the TACT has emerged as an important theoretical perspective. innovation characteristics), they do not fully encompass the constraints
However, as described by Majchrzak and Markus (2013), the TACT is associated with technology use. Similarly, institutionalist approaches
not a clearly defined and homogeneous theory, but rather a collection of like the Technology Enactment Framework (TEF) examine the practical
scholarly theoretical efforts that are connected through the concept of use of technologies, but their primary focus is on the impact of the
affordance, sometimes in a dispersed manner. Consequently, there is still institutional context, such as organizational culture, rules, structure, and
inconsistency in the use of terminology, core concepts, and assumptions inter-organizational networks. In contrast, our research focuses more on
among TACT scholars. individuals’ perceptions of both the positive and negative impacts of
That being said, it has been one of the most common theories to technology use. Consequently, the TACT is better suited for our study as
examine the interactions between technology and its users in informa­ it specifically emphasizes the practical use of technology and provides
tion systems research. In contrast to the view that technology acts as an concepts necessary for capturing the full spectrum of impacts relevant to

3
T. Chen et al. Government Information Quarterly 41 (2024) 101910

the use of technology for emergency messaging. jurisdictions.

Building on previous research, this study applies the constructs of the We specifically targeted emergency management agencies at the
TACT to examine emergency managers’ utilization of technology for local government level in the United States, since they are usually the
writing and sending emergency messages. More specifically, we focus on front line in receiving emergency information from first responders and
the following four aspects: (1) the used digital artifacts and their pur­ are responsible for communicating with the public (Leiva, 2014). In the
poses, (2) affordances, (3) constraints, and (4) coping strategies devel­ United States, local governments can send out emergency messages via
oped by emergency managers. Therefore, in relation to constraints, we various platforms, among which there are several systems requiring an
not only observe what types of challenges emergency managers confront authorization from FEMA, including Emergency Alert System (EAS),
when using the technology for emergency messaging but further explore Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), and NOAA Weather Radio. In
how they cope with some of those challenges. This is crucial because particular, the WEA, which delivers text-based messages to people’s
technology users may develop different ways to deal with the constraints mobile phones, had taken a larger role in notifying the public as the
to mitigate the risk that could stop them from attaining the intended majority of people use a mobile phone and check them constantly,
goals, which is particularly important for emergency managers, as they compared to a radio or a TV – which the EAS and NOAA weather radio
must figure out how to notify the public when facing an imminent threat rely upon. Therefore, it is paramount to examine local governments’
that could cause significant damage to people and their property, technology use in writing and sending emergency messages that in­
considering several constraints. In this sense, a constraint may be fixable volves as many platforms as possible, but especially WEA. In addition,
or could be somewhat addressed in a way that minimizes its potential the case of emergency messaging provides a suitable context for exam­
harm. Therefore, we seek to contribute to the TACT by applying the ining the coping strategies. Since emergency response requires urgent
theory to the specific case of emergency messaging and including coping action, emergency managers must quickly take steps to deal with the
strategies as another important construct to consider. A summary of the constraints and disseminate critical information to the public.
conceptual framework is shown in Fig. 1. While we acknowledge the importance of including WEA in our
Our examination of emergency messaging via the TACT is also research, there is no comprehensive knowledge regarding which local
grounded in a practice perspective, which underscores the significance government agencies are accredited with the authority to deliver WEA
of comprehending the social practices associated with the use and messages and how familiar they are with using the system. Therefore, a
implementation of information systems in organizations (Nicolini, 2013; purposeful sampling technique was utilized to identify potential in­
Tavakoli & Schlagwein, 2016). Specifically, our study delves into the terviewees. Specifically, participants were identified based on recom­
practice of emergency messaging within the realm of emergency man­ mendations from (1) a research project’s point of contact at FEMA, who
agement in local governments, with a focus on how emergency man­ has the familiarity with local emergency management agencies with the
agers, the message senders, utilize digital artifacts to shape their own authority to utilize IPAWS and (2) other interviewees. In addition,
distinct practices through the process of enactment and based on shared several criteria, including geographic location, type of local govern­
norms, experiences, and knowledge. Furthermore, these practices are ment, population size, and the experience sending WEA messages in the
not solely derived from institutional laws or regulations but are also recent past, have been used to select and invite interviewees to maxi­
influenced by the practical wisdom that these individuals have devel­ mize variation, information richness, and sample representativeness.1 In
oped over time. total, eighteen semi-structured interviews with emergency managers in
local governments were conducted from December 2021 to March 2022.
4. Research design and methods Each interview lasted approximately an hour. Basic information about
the participants is shown in Table 1. All the participants have writing
To answer the research questions, we conducted in-depth, semi- and sending emergency messages as one of their primary re­
structured interviews. This qualitative method consists of a few closed- sponsibilities. Based on their experience and position, we believe that
and open-ended questions, allowing each individual to freely share their they have sufficient knowledge to speak about emergency messaging in
thoughts on a phenomenon (Adams, 2015). Due to its strength in their jurisdiction.
probing participants’ perceptions and interpretations, the method has The interview questions were designed to identify the digital arti­
been used by previous studies to understand technology affordances and facts used for emergency messaging and respondents’ experiences with
constraints in different sectors (Effah et al., 2021; Sarwar & Harris, and perceptions of the affordances and constraints of those artifacts. For
2019; Senyo et al., 2021; Strong et al., 2014; Tim, Pan, Ractham, & instance, we tried to understand the utilized artifacts by asking: “what
Kaewkitipong, 2017). The primary goal of using this approach is to techniques or tools do you use for writing messages for emergency
capture the shared perceptions of technology affordances, constraints, messaging?” and, more generally, “could you describe your current tech­
and coping strategies among emergency managers from multiple nical infrastructure?” As for the affordances and constraints, we ask,
“how do the characteristics of the tools or techniques affect your ability to
write the messages effectively?” A detailed interview guide, including
probing questions, can be found in the appendix. All interviews were
audio-recorded and then transcribed.
Drawing on the informed grounded theory approach (Thornberg,
2012), the coding was conducted based on the TACT framework. Spe­
cifically, the coding process consisted of two stages: initial coding and
focused coding (Saldaña, 2015; Yin, 1989). In the first stage, open

1
As shown in Table 1, the local emergency management agencies we inter­
viewed are distributed across 9 of the 10 FEMA regions in the U.S., encom­
passing nearly all the continental U.S. This geographical representation enables
us to understand emergency messaging practices for various types of natural
disasters across different regions, including hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires,
and earthquakes. However, it is important to note that emergency messaging is
Fig. 1. A Conceptual Framework on Technology Affordances, Constraints, and not limited to natural disasters alone; it also encompasses human-caused
Coping Strategies. emergencies.

4
T. Chen et al. Government Information Quarterly 41 (2024) 101910

Table 1 information officers (PIOs), and IT personnel may also participate in the
Interviewee information. message writing and approval process. While most emergency messages
Background information Number of are composed in the office, in some cases, messages are written in the
interviewees field, particularly when immediate communication and coordination are
Type of County 14 required for significant events. During emergencies, the primary
government concern for emergency managers is to send out a message to the public
City 3 with accurate emergency information and clear instructions on protec­
District 1 tive actions in a timely manner. Considering this background informa­
Population size 10,000–50,000 2
50,000–100,000 2
tion, below, we first present the prevalent digital artifacts used by
100,000–500,000 6 emergency managers for emergency messaging. Subsequently, we
500,000–1 million 1 describe and analyze the affordances, constraints, and coping strategies
1–5 million 5 associated with these artifacts, as summarized in Table 2.
6–10 million 2
Title Director/deputy director 4
Emergency management 7 5.1. Used digital artifacts
coordinator
Emergency manager 3 A variety of artifacts are used for emergency messaging, which can
Public information officer 2
be classified into four primary categories based on their functionality:
Regional planner 1
Program specialist 1
basic infrastructure, internal information sharing, message writing, and
Department Emergency management 17 message sending. This categorization was employed for two main rea­
Sheriff’s office 1 sons. First, it is the outcome of our coding process that identified com­
Geographic Region 1 1 mon functions of digital artifacts used by emergency managers. In other
location
words, each digital artifact was coded and then grouped based on their
Region 2 1
Region 3 2 similarities in terms of main functions. Second, this categorization aligns
Region 4 4 with the workflow (i.e., different key practices) of emergency
Region 5 1 messaging, where information sharing precedes message writing and
Region 6 1
sending, and the basic infrastructure serves as the foundation for all
Region 8 2
Region 9 4
stages.
Region 10 2 First, basic infrastructure refers to the fundamental artifacts that serve
as the backbones of information sharing as well as message writing and
Note: WEA experience refers to whether the agency has sent out a WEA message
sending. Cell towers, personal devices (e.g., computers, laptops, tablets,
since 2012. Geographic location is categorized based on FEMA regions, which
consist of ten regions in the continental U.S. and territories. smartphones, etc.), and the internet were reported as the basic infra­
structure artifacts for emergency messaging. The cell tower plays a
twofold role: it determines (1) whether a WEA message can be pushed to
coding was employed to identify all possible codes related to our areas of
a given area and (2) if an agency can access the Internet while on the
interest, including the used digital artifacts, affordances, constraints,
field to undertake the necessary tasks. Additionally, all the digital arti­
and coping strategies. An iterative phronetic analysis approach was
facts, which will be mentioned below, require a personal device and
employed to identify the codes. This method implies that, rather than
stable Internet connection (e.g., cable or wireless internet) to function.
solely depending on either an inductive or deductive approach for data
Hence, without these three crucial components, a message cannot be
analysis, researchers oscillate iteratively between referencing existing
composed and made available to the public.
theories and predefined questions, and exploring emergent findings
Second, internal information sharing occurs as different stakeholders
from qualitative data (Tracy, 2020). When coding the interviews, the
within government exchange information and communicate with one
coder went back and forth between the data and the existing literature
another. The participants indicated that both conventional and
on the TACT to ensure that the code identification was correctly carried
emerging technology is employed. For instance, email, phone calls, and
out.
ham radio have been used to share information for a long time. More
During the second stage, the identified codes were further analyzed
recently, there has been an increasing trend in the use of online chat
and classified into distinct categories, as presented in Table 2 in the
platforms and software such as Web Emergency Operation Center (Web
Findings section. These codes were categorized based on the type of
EOC), Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Slack, Conference Bridge, and
artifacts and their corresponding tasks. For example, certain artifacts
Everbridge.
were specifically utilized to facilitate information exchange within
Third, message writing is the process during which an emergency
government, and we captured common patterns related to affordances,
manager or staff composes the content for an emergency message. In this
constraints, and coping strategies mentioned by interviewees while
respect, respondents commonly use Google Form, Google Sheet, Google
discussing these artifacts. One author manually coded the data to ensure
Docs, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Notepad, and some mass noti­
consistency, and subsequently, all researchers reviewed and evaluated
fication software to write and store their messages. They also use Google
the coding results to ensure accurate categorization and interpretation
Translate, Google Map, Marplot, Google Drive, Grammarly, and char­
(Saldaña, 2015). All the interview data were coded using MAXQDA
acter counter websites to assist with their message writing. Notably, the
22.2.9 software.
majority of mass notification software designed for WEA messages offer
features allowing users to manage multiple accounts, save and reuse
5. Findings
messages, and track the character count of the message.
After a message is composed, it must be delivered to the target
Our findings indicate that emergency managers typically receive
population through multiple channels, which is the message sending
message requests from various individuals and departments, particu­
stage. The interviewees pointed out several channels they use to send
larly staff in the field during emergency events. This includes 911 su­
messages, including landline phones, websites, reverse 911, warning
pervisors, sheriffs, dispatchers, incident commanders, and personnel
sirens, social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, NextDoor, and
from fire and police departments. Emergency managers work closely
Sprout Social), the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
with field staff to gather the necessary information for message creation.
(IPAWS), and other specific mass notification software (e.g., Everbridge,
In addition, the external affairs team, the mayor’s office, public
CodeRed, AlertSense, Nixle, and self-developed applications). Notably,

5
T. Chen et al. Government Information Quarterly 41 (2024) 101910

Table 2
Summary of Findings on Affordances, Constraints, and Coping Strategies.
Type of artifacts Task Affordances Constraints Coping strategies

Basic infrastructure To access software, the internet, • Not mentioned. • Prevent access to the Internet and • Request others to send the
and deliver messages. electricity due to power outages and message out on their behalf.
(e.g., cell towers, malfunctioning cell towers.
internet) • Unable to use the artifact due to • Utilize multiple channels.
system crashes.
• Unsure if the message can hit the • Not mentioned.
target population due to limited
knowledge of the distribution of cell
towers.
Internal information To share emergency information, • Enable efficient • Unable to use the artifacts smoothly • Hold regular training.
sharing communicate with, and obtain communication, because of forgetting log-in informa­
approval from other stakeholders collaboration, and tion or basic functionality.
(e.g., Web EOC, within the government. coordination.
Zoom, Microsoft
Teams, etc.)
Message writing To write emergency messages. • Ensure the compliance of the • Impede communication with non- • Collaborate with staff who is
message content with the English speaking population due to fluent in the language or hire a
(e.g., Google rules set by the system. low accuracy of the translation tool. professional translator to
Spreadsheet, Word, • Saving the time of drafting translate the message.
Excel, Grammarly, messages. • Unsure how to effectively • Hold regular training.
etc.) • Improve the understanding communicate with the public given
of a geographic area. the character limit.
• Ensure the correctness of the • Unsure whether the message content • Use Notepad to generate plain
message. fits with the character rules. text.
Message sending To send out emergency messages • Direct people to find more • Unable to reach the public on official • Send out messages via social
to the public. information. websites due to overwhelmed media first.
(e.g., social media, • Manage user traffic. systems.
IPAWS, mass • Better communicate the • Unable to send out messages due to • Hold regular training and use
notification software, emergency. lack of familiarity with the systems. templates.
etc.) • Alert people in the area • Unable to send out messages due to • Specify the role and
continually. fear of making mistakes. responsibility and hold regular
• Reduce the likelihood of training.
accidentally sending out a • Prevent smooth transition over • Not mentioned.
message. various systems due to inconsistency
• Increase flexibility in in interface design.
sending messages under • Create confusion in the message • Not mentioned.
various contexts. delivery due to variations within
• Understand the message telecommunication carriers.
performance.

our interviews suggest that social media, the IPAWS system, mass whether a message should be pushed, what channels they should utilize,
notification systems, and websites are the most prominent methods for who the target audiences are, and what information should be included
issuing emergency messages. Specifically concerning software related to in the message. However, specific artifacts have offered unique oppor­
WEA, they offer features that allow users to send messages in a testing tunities for assisting with their work. For instance, the Web EOC pro­
environment before going live, preview the message on a cell phone vides the contact information of the stakeholders. As some respondents
screen, confirm and approve the message before sending, and obtain mentioned, it also allows more flexibility for participation: “They [the
after-event reports regarding the delivered message. involved agencies] really prefer working on a dispersed model like web EOC.
We believe that the artifacts identified above are representative of The virtual EOC is much more comfortable to them, rather than bringing
those used for emergency messaging because they were commonly everybody to one central point.”
mentioned by the interviewees regardless of the different characteristics During the message writing stage, the first affordance is assuring the
such as population size, type of government, and geographic location. compliance of the message content with the rules set by the system. This
Besides, some of the digital artifacts, particularly those used for message affordance can be achieved by informing the writers of the number of
writing and sending, need to be compatible with FEMA’s requirements characters inserted and the remaining amount, which derives from
for the IPAWS. There are approximately 28 software providers across the software such as Google Form, Google Docs, Microsoft Word, and online
US that demonstrate such IPAWS capabilities, and, thereby, most character counters. As several respondents mentioned, the character
emergency managers purchase services from these providers to write count gives emergency managers the confidence that they are not
and send out messages. writing a message too long for the system. Additionally, as plain text
without special symbols or hidden characters is required for a WEA
message, some interviewees prefer to write messages on Notepad. The
5.2. Affordances second frequently mentioned affordance is saving the time of drafting
messages, which primarily refers to the functionality of creating and
The artifacts utilized for different purposes during various stages saving emergency message templates for later use. To minimize the time
have affordances that emergency managers can use for emergency for writing a message during emergencies, most interviewees shared the
messaging in several ways. First, the artifacts for internal information same practice of designing and approving templates for varying kinds of
sharing enable participating organizations and individuals to commu­ common hazards in advance. With templates, whenever an emergency
nicate, collaborate, and coordinate among various key stakeholders happens, they only need to add specific information concerning the
more effectively and efficiently. These artifacts, collectively, help them hazard, time, and protective action into the content and send it. Re­
acquire the necessary facts regarding the hazard and share thoughts on spondents mentioned using Excel, Microsoft Word, Google Form, Google
multiple important questions about emergency messaging, for example,

6
T. Chen et al. Government Information Quarterly 41 (2024) 101910

Sheet, Google Drive, and mass notification systems to create, edit, or Concerning message writing, the reported challenges include trans­
store templates. lation and character requirements. First, it is widely accepted among the
The third affordance is improving the users’ understanding of a participants that Google Translation does not provide accurate enough
geographic area. Google Maps, for example, is a convenient artifact they results that can be used to notify the non-English speaking population in
utilize to draw the affected area, which can be added on social media to the community. Many emergency managers wish for a translation tool
inform citizens. Besides, one participant noted that the agency employs because “there’s no technology out there yet that will accurately pull a
the Marplot software to gain census demographic data of a given region, message in English and change it into a different language.” Before an ac­
helping indicate the potential special needs of the residents. The final curate translation software comes into reality, they tend to find a person
affordance is ensuring the correctness of the message, including English within the organization who is fluent in the language or hire a profes­
grammar and spellcheck, with the assistance of Grammarly and Micro­ sional translator to translate the message. However, this method is more
soft Word. Both artifacts ensure that messages are free of grammatical feasible for pre-scripted messages but more challenging for free-form
and spelling mistakes, which is key to message accuracy and messages that need to be created on the fly.
understandability. Second, message writing can be impeded by character requirements
Regarding message sending, the affordances vary extensively among specific to the systems. One is the number of characters. Several par­
existing artifacts and specific software. First, as the number of characters ticipants feel that the 90-character WEA message is more complicated to
allowed is limited, emergency managers find their official websites compose than its 360-character counterpart because it is difficult to
helpful as they can include URLs in the messages, directing people to create an informative message within such a restricted space. The other
visit websites for more detailed information about the hazard and related challenge is special characters. Interviewees suggested that it is
necessary protective actions. Second, respondents consider Facebook unclear what types of special characters, like an ampersand sign or an
and Twitter as essential channels that can handle a significant amount of apostrophe, would be accepted by a system. Accordingly, they some­
traffic, which their websites typically cannot accommodate. These times feel confused because the message can be sent successfully via one
platforms also allow the sharing of visual content, making the message channel but have problems to be sent by another. In light of these
more engaging and convincing to the public. Third, with respect to the constraints, emergency managers would hold training to learn how to
IPAWS system, the implementation of geofencing techniques enhances better communicate with the target population under a specific char­
the ability to continuously alert the public. As people enter the targeted acter limit. Additionally, they can utilize tools such as Notepad to
area during a specific period, they automatically receive the emergency generate plain text and ensure the avoidance of any potential use of
message. Additionally, the certificate and code requirements of the special characters before inputting the message into the sending
system minimize the likelihood of accidentally sending out a message. systems.
Lastly, mass notification software enables emergency managers to During the message sending stage, overwhelmed systems, unfamil­
schedule messages in advance, easily map out impacted areas, access the iarity with the systems, fear of sending a message, inconsistent user
system through various devices (such as laptops, desktops, tablets, and interface design, and a variation in carriers’ ability to push a message to
smartphones), and receive post-event reports that provide statistics the public are typical technology constraints the interviewees have
about the delivered messages. These features increase the flexibility for experienced. First, as an emergency happens, official websites are usu­
emergency managers to send out messages in different locations and ally overwhelmed very quickly due to an enormous amount of users
offer indicators to assess the immediate performance of the message. trying to obtain or share information. Hence, as mentioned earlier, the
interviewees would send out a message via social media first in an
5.3. Constraints and coping strategies attempt to decrease website traffic. Second, unfamiliarity with the sys­
tems emerges as a critical barrier to sending a message. The unfamil­
The interviewees identified several constraints and corresponding iarity results partly from the software design that poses a steeper
coping strategies related to basic infrastructure, internal information learning curve for beginners to navigate the system. It is also because
sharing, message writing, and message sending. Regarding basic infra­ many emergency managers do not use the software regularly. Designing
structure, power outages and malfunctioning cell towers are the most message templates and providing exercise and instructional materials
prominent barriers that cause emergency managers to lose access to the are conducive to increasing users’ level of acquaintance with these
Internet and electricity and hinder their ability to deliver an emergency message sending artifacts.
message, especially a WEA. Given these difficulties, interviewees Third, there is a particular fear of sending WEA messages among
mentioned that they would request other entities, such as a partner emergency managers, which is prevalent in many agencies. As one
agency and/or the software provider, to send the message out on their interviewee said, “I know that the emergency managers in surrounding
behalf. Additionally, they avoid depending on only one system but uti­ counties really don’t want to send that message because it’s just that fear that
lize multiple channels instead to deliver the message so that even if one you’ll do something wrong.” The main reason is that emergency managers
system crashes or is not working properly, other channels can still reach are worried about what happen if they send out a wrong message, which
the public. Not knowing the distribution of cell towers is another chal­ could affect a vast amount of population in the area. Two major ap­
lenge brought up by some participants, particularly for WEA messages. proaches to tackle the challenge are specifying the role and re­
It was said that the cellular providers maintain decent quality infor­ sponsibility of the staff, which clarifies who is responsible for sending a
mation about whether a location has a cell tower as a proprietary message, and training, which ensures the person has the necessary
knowledge. As a result, emergency authorities may fail to know whether knowledge to carry it out properly. Fourth, an inconsistency in user
a chosen cell tower can really hit the targeted population. interface design across mass notification systems can be cumbersome to
For internal information exchange, the interviewees reported that the the users when they switch systems because of moving to a different
most significant challenge is not able to use the artifacts smoothly agency or changing providers. They wish there could be a standardized
because of forgetting log-in information or basic functionality of such look and structure across the systems, so they do not need to navigate
artifacts as Web EOC, Microsoft Teams, or certain mass notification and learn everything from scratch.
software. This challenge leads to a delay in the subsequent message Finally, and specifically for WEA messages, our participants
writing and delivery tasks. The obstacle results from the fact that observed a significant variation among telecommunication carriers
emergency managers do not use some of these artifacts frequently. As regarding whether a WEA message can be delivered, as one example
way to cope with this problem, agencies hold training on a regular basis illustrates: “My government phone uses AT&T and the personal one is
to better familiarize users with the artifacts and have them use the ar­ Verizon. Often, when we do test messages, I may get them on my AT&T but
tifacts more regularly. don’t get them on my Verizon.” However, they know neither the reasons

7
T. Chen et al. Government Information Quarterly 41 (2024) 101910

for the discrepancy nor the actual penetration rate of each service pro­ software for WEA can provide users with certain affordances in message
vider. This information is not publicly available. writing and sending, users still need to seek out additional artifacts that
offer complementary affordances to supplement that software. Inter­
6. Discussion estingly, the dynamic, interactive relationships between the users and
multiple artifacts are rarely captured by existing TACT studies, where
This research aims to better understand emergency managers’ researchers tend to look at a single digital artifact and how it is utilized
technology use for emergency messaging. By conducting interviews with by certain users (Effah et al., 2021; Goldkuhl, 2020; Sarwar & Harris,
local emergency management agencies across the United States, we 2019; Senyo et al., 2021).
identify the artifacts commonly used by these managers, the affordances Second, our findings demonstrate that the influence of affordances
and constraints imposed by those artifacts, and how the constraints and constraints on actors can manifest in various forms, encompassing
could be managed or overcome. Our findings jointly make a connection informative and executable aspects (Goldkuhl, 2008; Hartson, 2003).
to the existing literature in several ways. Specifically, certain affordances and constraints are directly linked to
Our focus on the message sender’s roles and behaviors provides a information, enabling emergency managers to make informed decisions.
new angle for understanding emergency messaging. In contrast to the For instance, the improved communication, collaboration, and coordi­
attributes identified in past studies about sender characteristics, such as nation via the artifacts for information sharing streamlines the process
message, channel, frequency, and source (Mileti & Sorensen, 1990), this for emergency managers to gather situational information and craft
study shows that technology is another influential factor shaping more effective message content. In addition, the artifacts that provide
emergency managers’ messaging practices and the effectiveness and diagnosis on the compliance of message content with the rules set by the
efficiency of emergency messages. This study on technology use shows systems as well as on the performance of the delivered message also
that emergency managers employ various digital artifacts to fulfill provide crucial information for emergency managers to make decisions
different tasks – internal information sharing, message writing, and and evaluate their tasks. In contrast, some affordances and constraints
message sending. In addition, their ability to write and send effective are execution oriented. Examples of such aspects include time saving in
messages depend on those artifacts. More specifically, the findings drafting messages, guiding people to access more information, alerting
suggest that the impact of technology on emergency messaging is people continually, etc. This further analysis reveals that the affordances
twofold. First, technology can be beneficial by facilitating the commu­ and constraints associated with the artifacts can have two distinct as­
nication and coordination among agencies, ensuring that the message pects, both of which jointly determine the effectiveness and efficiency of
content is accurate and compatible with the different systems used, and emergency messaging.
boosting the reach of emergency messages. Second, technology can pose Third, we contributed to the TACT by moving beyond identifying the
a threat to messaging in situations where basic infrastructure fails, technology constraints and also illustrate how actors tackle the chal­
systems become overwhelmed, systems do not yield a satisfactory lenges, which is frequently not mentioned in the literature. For instance,
translation output or fail to support the input of certain characters, or Effah et al. (2021) also found power outages and internet outages to be
users are unfamiliar with and/or unwilling to use the systems. significant constraints that impede the function of smart service systems
These insights into technology affordances and constraints can but did not provide evidence on how the system users responded to the
benefit emergency management researchers, practitioners, and software difficulties. In contrast, this study shows that regular training and
providers. They can help in understanding the practice of emergency providing instructional resources are strategies commonly adopted to
messaging and brainstorming ways to enhance positive outcomes while increase emergency managers’ confidence in and familiarity with the
mitigating potential negative impacts. For example, software providers different artifacts they use for emergency messages. In addition, emer­
offering support for both writing and sending emergency messages could gency managers take advantage of multiple modalities (e.g., tools,
explore integrating features with different affordances related to mes­ channels) for message writing and sending, which reduces over-reliance
sage writing and sending within a single platform. This would eliminate on a single digital artifact and spreads the potential risk of a system
the need for users to use multiple artifacts to fulfill their tasks. crash. These findings suggest that while constraints may appear and
Furthermore, practitioners can draw lessons from our findings on how prevent users from utilizing technology to its full potential, goal-
others have dealt with specific constraints that they may also encounter. oriented actors do not take the challenges as given but have the capa­
Meanwhile, the constraints that emergency managers are unable to bilities to create and test potential solutions. Nevertheless, as mentioned
address may be addressed through a broader collaboration between above, it should be noted that not every challenge can be managed. As
higher levels of government, local emergency management agencies, such, a limited understanding of the coping strategies and to what extent
and private companies. a constraint could be addressed may give an incomplete account of
Our findings add insights into the TACT as well. First, our investi­ technology constraints, which in turn, could lead scholars and practi­
gation confirms the premise of the TACT that technology does not exist tioners to make imprecise recommendations for improvement.
independently from users, but its effectiveness is the result of complex Finally, and building upon the previous point, our findings suggest
interactions between technology and users (Majchrzak & Markus, that combining a practice approach with the TACT framework provides
2013). In addition, drawing upon a practice perspective, we show that deeper insights into the relationship between actors and the artifacts
emergency managers establish practices to accomplish a given task by they utilize. One key finding is that the use of technology is significantly
actively assessing the pros and cons of each digital artifact and seeking influenced by the social practices, norms, and meanings shared among
to maximize its benefits while minimizing its limitations. emergency managers. For example, the constraint of unfamiliarity with
Because no used and studied artifact can be considered perfect, or fear of using certain artifacts does not solely arise from the artifacts
emergency managers do not rely on a single artifact for all the tasks. In themselves but is rooted in the working culture, mindset, and shared
fact, most of them have created a toolbox where various artifacts play meanings within the emergency management community. Likewise, the
distinct roles in helping them exchange information with multiple in­ coping strategy of conducting regular training sessions to enhance
dividuals and organization as well as write and send emergency mes­ emergency managers’ comfort and familiarity with the artifacts is a
sages. Take WEA messages for example: A county emergency manager social practice developed by the actors themselves. Understanding the
may obtain a request from the Web EOC, write a message on a notepad, agency of actors, as informed by a practice perspective (e.g., Reckwitz,
count characters using online software, check the grammar with a 2002), helps uncover the actual affordances and constraints experienced
grammar check app, and finally draw a polygon on a mass notification by the group of actors and their responses, complementing the TACT
system, enter the message content and other required information, and framework.
hit the ‘send’ button. This demonstrates that while mass notification

8
T. Chen et al. Government Information Quarterly 41 (2024) 101910

7. Conclusion emergency agencies based on their level of emergency messaging

capability.
Effective and efficient messaging during emergencies is key for
saving lives and reducing property damage. Digital artifacts have CRediT authorship contribution statement
become indispensable for governments worldwide to write and issue
emergency messages. It is of critical importance to disentangle the re­ Tzuhao Chen: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
lationships among technology, messaging, and emergency managers in Methodology, Writing – original draft. J. Ramon Gil-Garcia: Concep­
governments so that we can identify ways to fully utilize the potential of tualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing
technology for writing and sending emergency messages in the future. – review & editing, Supervision. G. Brian Burke: Data curation, Funding
By applying the TACT and a practice perspective to analyze the evidence acquisition, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. Ales­
collected in U.S. local governments, we systematically depict the arti­ sandria Dey: Data curation, Writing – review & editing. Derek
facts underlying multiple tasks related to these messages, the ways Werthmuller: Data curation, Funding acquisition, Writing – review &
different digital artifacts facilitate or impede the entire process, and the editing.
strategies developed by emergency managers to address some of the
constraints. Declaration of competing interest
In our view, the findings significantly contribute to the existing
scholarly knowledge on the TACT as well as emergency messaging. First, The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
our investigation into the various specific technologies involved in the interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
message creation process and their impact on information sharing, the work reported in this paper.
message writing, and message sending enhances the current under­
standing of emergency messaging. In addition, the practical implications Acknowledgement
of these findings could encourage emergency managers to consider
technology use, recognize the necessary knowledge and skills to navi­ An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2023 American
gate various technologies, and address the challenges identified in our Society of Public Administration (ASPA) annual conference. We would
study, especially those for which coping strategies are lacking. like to express our sincere gratitude to the conference participants for
Second, the current scope of the TACT fails to fully acknowledge the their feedback. Special acknowledgement is due to Dr. Qianli Yuan for
agency of actors in actively seeking solutions to the constraints associ­ his input in shaping the conceptual framework of this study. Addition­
ated with technology use. We argue that this lack of understanding of ally, we are thankful for the constructive feedback offered by the three
coping strategies may result in a biased assessment of the severity of anonymous reviewers. This work has been partially supported by the
challenges faced by actors. By drawing upon a practice approach to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through contract
examine how actors effectively cope with these constraints, researchers number 70FA5021C00000016. The opinions, findings, and conclusions
can gain a better understanding of the relative severity of the problem or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and
and provide more realistic policy and management recommendations. do not necessarily reflect the official views of FEMA.
Despite these contributions, emergency messaging remains a multi-
dimensional phenomenon, requiring further efforts in the future to Appendix A. Interview Guide2
develop a holistic understanding of the relationships between various
components and activities necessary for effective emergency messages. 1. Used artifacts
Our study is not exempt from limitations. First, while technology is (1). For emergency messaging
vital for effective messaging, there remain a variety of factors from the • Could you tell me what techniques (or tools) you use for
message supply side (writing and sending messages) that may play a role writing and sending messages for public alert and warning?
but are under-researched. For example, managerial, organizational, Could you describe them?
inter-organizational, and political factors may also influence the sharing i. Which software do you use to write and send messages for
of the necessary information as well as the writing and sending of public alert and warning (Word, Excel, Google Docs,
messages in specific contexts and situations. More studies are needed to Google forms, etc.)?
examine these different dimensions and to what extent different factors ii. Can you name any additional software or technology tool
have an impact on message writing and sending and on the digital ar­ that you use to write and send messages for public alert
tifacts used for these tasks. Furthermore, we acknowledge the potential and warning?
for exploring the multifaceted role of technology in emergency iii. Are there other tools you wish you could use, but cannot?
messaging. In this respect, it’s important to consider utilizing other And if you cannot why not?
theoretical frameworks, such as TOE and TEF, which can be used in (2). Technical infrastructure
future research endeavors and enrich our findings by including different • Could you please describe your current technical infrastruc­
perspectives. ture? What kinds of software/hardware/network does your
Second, while the main purpose of this study was to identify the organization have/use?
shared perspectives among various emergency managers, we acknowl­ i. Does everybody in your organization use the same software
edge that variations may exist among agencies in different locations or and systems? Why or why not?
with varying degrees of resources. For future research, a multiple case 2. Affordances and constraints
study approach could be applied to examine these differences. Third, as (1). For emergency messaging
our study is conducted in the specific context of local governments in the • In your opinion, how do the characteristics of your tool and/
U.S., it should be noted that the findings may not be generalizable to or techniques affect your ability to effectively write and send
nations other than the United States or other levels of government. messages for public alert and warning?
Future research can examine the government’s technology use for i. What are the main characteristics of the tools or systems
emergency messaging in different national and organizational contexts. you use to write and send messages for public alert and
Finally, as our sampling relies on recommendations from FEMA and
other interviewees, it is likely that our analysis is biased towards more
experienced local emergency agencies. To examine the generalizability 2
The questions and prompts may vary according to the flow of the interview
of our findings, future research can be conducted to differentiate local and the comments made by the interviewee.

9
T. Chen et al. Government Information Quarterly 41 (2024) 101910

warning? What kind of aids and prompts does it offer as Hartson, R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in
interaction design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(5), 315–338. https://doi.
you write and send messages for public alert and warning?
org/10.1080/01449290310001592587
What challenges did you confront when using the tools? Kim, G., Martel, A., Eisenman, D., Prelip, M., Arevian, A., Johnson, K. L., & Glik, D.
How did you cope with the challenges? (2019). Wireless emergency alert messages: Influences on protective action
ii. How hard/easy was it to learn the tools and techniques and behaviour. Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management, 27(4), 374–386. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12278
to incorporate them into your job processes? Were these Kuligowski, E. D. (2020). Field research to application: A study of human response to the
tools made available to all or just a specific group? Was 2011, Joplin tornado and its impact on alerts and warnings in the USA. Natural
training in using the tools/techniques provided? Hazards, 102(3), 1057–1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-03945-6
Leiva, M. (2014). Leveraging emergency notification alerts. Homeland Security Affairs, 10,
(2). Technical infrastructure 1–5.
• Overall, how do you think your current technical infrastruc­ Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2012). The protective action decision model: Theoretical
ture (hardware, software, quality of Internet connection, etc.) modifications and additional evidence: The protective action decision model. Risk
Analysis, 32(4), 616–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x
affects your ability to write and send effective messages for Liu, B. F., Wood, M. M., Egnoto, M., Bean, H., Sutton, J., Mileti, D., & Madden, S. (2017).
public alert and warning? Why? Is a picture worth a thousand words? The effects of maps and warning messages on
i. Do you remember any time when any technical problem how publics respond to disaster information. Public Relations Review, 43(3), 493–506.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.004
prevented or delayed your ability to write and send Majchrzak, A., & Markus, M. L. (2013). Technology affordances and constraints in
effective messages for public alert and warning? How did management information systems (MIS). In E. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
you cope with the challenges? management theory (pp. 832–836). Sage Publications.
Mileti, D. S., & Peek, L. (2000). The social psychology of public response to warnings of a
ii. How well do you think you know how to use the given
nuclear power plant accident. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 75(2–3), 181–194.
technology (Word processor, spreadsheet, Social Media https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(00)00179-5
platforms, Zoom, WebEx, etc.)? Do you think additional Mileti, D. S., & Sorensen, J. H. (1990). Communication of emergency public warnings: A
training would help you to do more? social science perspective and state-of-the-art assessment (ORNL-6609, 6137387; p.
ORNL-6609, 6137387). https://doi.org/10.2172/6137387
iii. Any challenges you experienced with the current tech­ Mora, L., Kummitha, R. K. R., & Esposito, G. (2021). Not everything is as it seems: Digital
nical infrastructure in your organization (software, hard­ technology affordance, pandemic control, and the mediating role of sociomaterial
ware, etc.)? What could be better from an infrastructure arrangements. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), Article 101599. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101599
standpoint to ensure you have what you need to do your Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction (1st ed.).
work and specifically to write and send effective messages Oxford University Press.
for public alert and warning? Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in Culturalist
theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/
10.1177/13684310222225432
References Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. In The coding manual
for qualitative researchers (3E.). SAGE.
Sarwar, A., & Harris, M. (2019). Children’s services in the age of information technology:
Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. In K. E. Newcomer,
What matters most to frontline professionals. Journal of Social Work, 19(6), 699–718.
H. P. Hatry, & J. S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017318788194
492–505). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19
Senyo, P. K., Effah, J., & Osabutey, E. L. C. (2021). Digital platformisation as public
Bean, H., Liu, B., Madden, S., Mileti, D., Sutton, J., & Wood, M. (2014). Comprehensive
sector transformation strategy: A case of Ghana’s paperless port. Technological
testing of imminent threat public messages for Mobile devices (white paper prepared
Forecasting and Social Change, 162, Article 120387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
for Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, support
techfore.2020.120387
to the homeland security Enterprise and first responders group.).. https://www.dhs.
Strong, D., Volkoff, O., Johnson, S., Pelletier, L., Tulu, B., Bar-On, I., … Garber, L. (2014).
gov/sites/default/files/publications/Comprehensive%20Testing%20of%20Immine
A theory of organization-EHR affordance actualization. Journal of the Association for
nt%20Threat%20Public%20Messages%20for%20Mobile%20Devices.pdf.
Information Systems, 15(2), 53–85. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00353
Bean, H., Sutton, J., Liu, B. F., Madden, S., Wood, M. M., & Mileti, D. S. (2015). The study
Sutton, J., Gibson, C. B., Phillips, N. E., Spiro, E. S., League, C., Johnson, B., …
of Mobile public warning messages: A research review and agenda. Review of
Butts, C. T. (2015). A cross-hazard analysis of terse message retransmission on
Communication, 15(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2015.1014402
twitter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(48), 14793–14798.
Cao, Y., Boruff, B. J., & McNeill, I. M. (2017). Towards personalised public warnings:
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1508916112
Harnessing technological advancements to promote better individual decision-
Sutton, J., & Kuligowski, E. D. (2019). Alerts and warnings on short messaging channels:
making in the face of disasters. International Journal of Digital Earth, 10(12),
Guidance from an expert panel process. Natural Hazards Review, 20(2), 04019002.
1231–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2017.1302007
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000324
Casteel, M. A., & Downing, J. R. (2016). Assessing risk following a wireless emergency
Sutton, J., Spiro, E. S., Johnson, B., Fitzhugh, S., Gibson, B., & Butts, C. T. (2014).
alert: Are 90 characters enough? Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Warning tweets: Serial transmission of messages during the warning phase of a
Management, 13(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2015-0024
disaster event. Information, Communication & Society, 17(6), 765–787. https://doi.
Chen, Q., Xu, X., Cao, B., & Zhang, W. (2016). Social media policies as responses for
org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.862561
social media affordances: The case of China. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2),
Sutton, J., Vos, S. C., Wood, M. M., & Turner, M. (2018). Designing effective tsunami
313–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.008
messages: Examining the role of short messages and fear in warning response.
DeYoung, S. E., Sutton, J. N., Farmer, A. K., Neal, D., & Nichols, K. A. (2019). “Death was
Weather, Climate, and Society, 10(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-17-
not in the agenda for the day”: Emotions, behavioral reactions, and perceptions in
0032.1
response to the 2018 Hawaii wireless emergency alert. International Journal of
Tavakoli, A., & Schlagwein, D. (2016). A review of the use of practice theory in
Disaster Risk Reduction, 36, Article 101078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
information systems research. In PACIS-2016 proceedings.
ijdrr.2019.101078
Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Effah, J., Amankwah-Sarfo, F., & Boateng, R. (2021). Affordances and constraints
Research, 56(3), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.581686
processes of smart service systems: Insights from the case of seaport security in
Tim, Y., Pan, S. L., Ractham, P., & Kaewkitipong, L. (2017). Digitally enabled disaster
Ghana. International Journal of Information Management, 58, Article 102204. https://
response: The emergence of social media as boundary objects in a flooding disaster.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102204
Information Systems Journal, 27(2), 197–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12114
FEMA. (2023). Wireless Emergency Alerts. https://www.fema.gov/emergency-manager
Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
s/practitioners/integrated-public-alert-warning-system/public/wireless-emergen
communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
cy-alerts.
Vieweg, S., Hughes, A. L., Starbird, K., & Palen, L. (2010). Microblogging during two
Gibson, J. J. (1978). The ecological approach to the visual perception of pictures.
natural hazards events: What twitter may contribute to situational awareness. In
Leonardo, 11(3), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.2307/1574154
Proceedings of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems -
Goldkuhl, G. (2008). Actability Theory Meets Affordance Theory: Clarifying HCI in IT
CHI ‘10 (p. 1079). https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753486
Usage Situations. In ECIS 2008 Proceedings (p. 242).
Wood, M. M., Mileti, D. S., Bean, H., Liu, B. F., Sutton, J., & Madden, S. (2018). Milling
Goldkuhl, G. (2020). Between overexploitation and underexploitation of digital
and public warnings. Environment and Behavior, 50(5), 535–566. https://doi.org/
opportunities—A case study with focus on affordances and constraints. In
10.1177/0013916517709561
G. V. Pereira, M. Janssen, H. Lee, I. Lindgren, M. P. R. Bolívar, H. J. Scholl, &
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (rev.). Sage Publications.
A. Zuiderwijk (Eds.), 12219. Electronic government. 19th IFIP WG 8.5 international
conference, EGOV 2020, Linköping, Sweden, august 31—September 2, 2020, proceedings
(pp. 3–14). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- Tzuhao Chen is a doctoral candidate in Public Administration and Policy at Rockefeller
57599-1. College of Public Affairs & Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York
(SUNY), with a concentration in Government Information Technology Management. His

10
T. Chen et al. Government Information Quarterly 41 (2024) 101910

research interests include technology innovation in the public sector, cross-boundary in­ G. Brian Burke is the managing director for the Center for Technology in Government,
formation sharing, digital divide, and sustainable smart cities. Chen currently serves as a University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY). Burke works closely with
Research Assistant for the Center for Technology in Government at the University at governments at all levels to help them develop better policies, management practices, and
Albany, SUNY. information and communication technologies that improve performance and services and
has authored and co-authored numerous academic and practitioner-focused publications
on topics including digital government, information sharing, and government information
J. Ramon Gil-Garcia is a Full Professor of Public Administration and Policy and the Di­
management strategies.
rector of the Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State University
of New York (SUNY). Dr. Gil-Garcia is a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences and
the Mexican National System of Researchers. In 2009, Dr. Gil-Garcia was considered the Alessandria Dey is a former program assistant for the Center for Technology in Govern­
most prolific author in the field of digital government research worldwide and in 2018 and ment, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY). Dey worked with both
2019 was named “One of the World’s 100 Most Influential People in Digital Government” staff and external partners to develop, implement, and track various project work plans.
by Apolitical, in the United Kingdom. More recently, in 2021, Dr. Gil-Garcia was one of the She also helped facilitate contact with community members if needed as well as facilitate
recipients of the two inaugural Digital Government Society (DGS) Fellows Awards. project meetings.
Currently, he is also a professor of the Business School at Universidad de las Américas
Puebla in Mexico. Dr. Gil-Garcia is the author or co-author of articles in prestigious in­
Derek Werthmuller is the Director of Technology Innovation at the Center for Technology
ternational journals in Public Administration, Information Systems, and Digital Govern­
in Government at the University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY).
ment and some of his publications are among the most cited in the field of digital
Werthmuller manages the Technology Solutions Laboratory and the Technology Services
government research worldwide. His research interests include collaborative digital gov­
Unit, which are responsible for researching, prototyping, and implementing innovative
ernment, inter-organizational collaboration and information integration, smart cities and
and sustainable technology solutions.
smart governments, data and data analytics for decision making, artificial intelligence in
government, adoption and implementation of emergent technologies, digital divide pol­
icies, information technologies in the budget process, digital government success factors,
information technologies and organizations, and multi-method research approaches.

11