Page 1 of 13
732
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol.7, No.6
Publication Date: June 25, 2020
DOI:10.14738/assrj.76.8459.
Prodjonoto, K. W. A. (2020). Crisis And Disaster Management Choice Strategy. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(6) 732-
744.
Crisis and Disaster Management Choice Strategy
Kunto Wibowo Agung Prodjonoto
The Strategic War Study Program of the Defense Strategy Faculty
Indonesian Defense University
ABSTRACT
Predicting the occurrence of a crisis is indeed difficult, where
insensitivity picks up signals from existing symptoms, causing it to only
realize when the crisis situation. If you are not able to handle it will have
bad consequences, and even the impact can not be predicted when it
ends. Therefore, optimal efforts to reduce risks and uncertainties are
carried out during a crisis, so that crisis management is needed to
quickly return to normal. Risk conditions are conditions that have an
impact on a situation such that it can cause a crisis or even a disaster.
Crisis is a situation of very high potential towards disaster in a short
span of time. While disasters are events that threaten and disrupt life
and livelihoods caused by natural factors and / or factors not natural or
human factors, causing casualties, environmental damage, property
losses, and psychological impacts. So, crises and disasters require
proper management. Accordingly, comparative advantage as a strategy
can be a choice for crisis and disaster management.
Keywords: development of strategic environment; factual and potential
aspects; competition and cooperation; strategic decision making.
INTRODUCTION
As the dynamics of the development of the strategic environment, technological advances are so
rapid, especially information-based technology that causes borderless. Then, irrational matters
become rational, the thinner the boundaries of war and peace, the advancing volatility, uncertainty,
complexity and ambiguity (VUCA), as well as many more crucial issues become global phenomena,
making it more complicated to formulate threats, more complex in decision making and the
increasingly difficult forecasts of the future, which comprehensively require procrastination. In this
regard, in this increasingly modern era development in many ways is a logical consequence, so it is
not surprising that no single nation has been spared from the brunt of the current of globalization
that has positive and negative impacts, depending on how to respond. When human resources are
development capital, when natural resources are the source of natural wealth, when geography is a
strategic position, then everything will be meaningless if management does not work as it should.
Paying attention to the dynamic life of the world, the complexity of the symptoms of the crisis is not
infrequently undetected and not responded to in the time available, so it is not surprising that it is
only realized when a crisis actually occurs.
The time dimension gives room for anticipation steps before a crisis occurs, so weaknesses in
anticipating the presence of a crisis require anticipatory steps in an operational framework. That is
Page 2 of 13
733
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 6, June-2020
why preventing a crisis is better than avoiding a crisis. In this regard, the risk condition is
understood as a condition that impacts a situation in such a way that it can cause crisis or disaster.
Therefore, crisis management is to avoid disaster, while optimal efforts to reduce risk and
uncertainty are carried out during a crisis, so that crisis management is needed to prevent crises
and deal with crises so that they can quickly return to normal. Likewise with disasters that can occur
in any field, crises and disasters require appropriate management, which specifically the nature of
the disaster is very varied in various places.
With regard to crises and disasters, it is important to realize that the effects or impacts can be
unpredictable when they end, so that signs of systemic decline and total destruction can occur. Lack
of sensitivity to the symptoms of crisis sometimes makes the response to early warning more not
the most consistent thing. In general, this is actually a major setback that is either consciously or
unconsciously experienced by such a situation as if it were a normative or routine thing. Example:
disasters can occur without warning among most disasters giving sufficient warning to their
occurrence and this is called the crisis period. However, among the facts when they were given an
early warning of a natural disaster so that action was taken by the community, but among the
evacuation actions there were still people who remained where the disaster was expected to occur.
This is a form of information dissemination about disaster warning that may not be synchronized
by various information, thus providing different understandings, perceptions, and beliefs. This kind
of situation can also occur in the business world, so that when a crisis or disaster really does occur,
then a large loss becomes a necessity due to the impact of the crisis and disaster. Likewise in other
fields, including governance, so that "Information is a very strategic key," in crisis and disaster
management.
Advances in technology, especially information-based technology provide a broad interpersonal
communication space, in addition to positive impacts, negative impacts are increasingly seen as a
symptom of a crisis in the midst of the dynamics of global interaction bringing the potential for thick
crisis. Infiltration of values that are not in accordance with the values that become the identity of a
nation has changed the lifestyle of the community, which actually considers these changes
appropriate. As a result, the decline in the spirit of nationalism is not impossible and this is actually
a crisis, a crisis of values. Thus, the crisis of value is real but it seems that it is not a crisis, so it is
seen as a normative dynamic life. According to (Giddens, 1995)[1], values are ideas held by a person
or group about what is desired, what is feasible, and what is good or bad.
Then, values are ideas about whether an action is important or not important, (Horton & Hunt,
1987) [2]. Meanwhile, according to (Schaefer & P.Lmm, 1998) [3], values are collective (together)
ideas about what is considered good, important, desirable, and considered worthy. At the same time
about what is considered not good, not important, not desirable and not appropriate in terms of
culture. Value refers to what is important in human life, both as individuals and as members of
society. Listening to the opinions of these experts, the author understands values as a holistic idea
of what is in the mind of a person or most members of the public about what is considered good,
valuable, and important in life that serves as a guide that gives orientation to his life.
If it is realized, the value crisis will become more chronic if it is not appropriately handled, causing
potential threats to become factual, where factual threats are threats that are actually faced today
Page 3 of 13
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.76.8521 734
Anyu, J. N., & Dzekashu, W. G. (2020). Freshwater Resource Exploitation: New Security Challenge For Africa. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal,
7(6) 722-731.
which thus constitute a real threat. Meanwhile, potential threats are threats that surface when there
are triggers, in other words, if not handled properly, they will appear to be factual. Example: thanks
to the advancement of information technology, cyber crime has emerged which clearly shows
symptoms of a decline in social value and can even be a tool, means and resources of war in the
present and future, namely cyber war. If cyber crime does not merely threaten individuals, it
threatens public interests and safety, and even greater is threatening the nation state, so that this
crisis develops into a disaster.
Crisis and disaster are consequences that become challenges, so how the crisis and disaster
situation can be effectively and efficiently managed in such a way as to minimize risk and increase
certainty so that it can quickly return to normal, carried out. That is why, in crisis and disaster
management, various strategic plans and operational plans are developed within a framework of
strategic decision making in anticipation of all possible crises and disasters. Organizing, preparing
resources and infrastructure as well as making appropriate decisions, are comprehensively
prepared in anticipation of a crisis and disaster will be very useful, so that the interaction of all
parties in a strategic environment is faced with the choice between cooperation and conflict more
strategic.
METHODS
This paper uses the deductive method and desk study, including examination and analysis as well
as secondary data information with a phenomonological approach, revealing the meaning and
paying attention to the dynamics of the development of the strategic environment.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Crisis, is a dangerous situation (in suffering from illness); very severe; critical situation; crisis
gloomy circumstances (about economics, morals, etc.); the decisive moment in the story or drama
when the situation becomes dangerous and a decision must be made [4]. Meanwhile, disaster is
something that causes (causes) distress, loss, or suffering; accident; danger: dishonest leaders will
cause - for the country and nation; in danger; in an accident; disruption; temptation: they hold
salvation to resist - evil spirits, meanwhile natural disasters are natural disasters (such as
earthquakes, big winds, and floods) [5]. In this regard, the ability to make decisions and available
resources, will determine the effectiveness and efficiency in dealing with a crisis or disaster. In
addition, it is very important to be as complete and precise as possible about the information
obtained, because it relates to alternatives and probabilities, in addition to the relativity of strengths
and weaknesses that are available as well as possible opportunities that exist and the adverse effects
of crises or disasters that pose a threat, it is necessary cooperation between parties internally and
externally.
One international agreement that shows the importance of disaster management is regulated by
international law, namely, "Convention Establishing an International Relief Union in 1927," (Agoes
& Profesor of Universitas Padjajaran, 2005) [6]. Meanwhile, based on the Law of the Republic of
Indonesia (UURI) Number 24 Year 2007, concerning Disaster Management, article 1 paragraph (1),
"Disasters are events or series of events that threaten and disrupt people's lives and livelihoods
caused, both by natural factors and / or non-natural factors and human factors that result in human
casualties, environmental damage, property losses, and psychological impacts, "and in paragraph
(2)," Natural disasters are disasters caused by events or series of events caused by nature including
Page 4 of 13
735
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 6, June-2020
earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, floods, droughts, hurricanes and landslides. " If a disaster is
understood as an event by nature or caused by non-natural factors or by human factors, so that it
adversely affects the community or community groups or organizations, then the disaster is a
danger. Danger is a natural or artificial phenomenon that has the potential to threaten human life
and the environment and cause loss of property. As a result, those affected have to respond with
extraordinary steps. The short span of time before a disaster is a crisis period, where fast and
precise decisions under extraordinary pressure are needed to be able to immediately restore the
situation of a disaster that will occur, whereas, before the crisis is a period of crisis prevention or
avoidance, where the framework as a system applied.
Likewise, the pre-disaster period, the situation does not occur, the prevention and reduction of
disaster risks are carried out as well as the situation there is a potential for disaster so that
preparedness, early warning and disaster mitigation are carried out. Then when a disaster occurs,
rescue and evacuation of victims affected by the disaster, a period of disaster emergency response,
and after that period is a post-disaster period, carried out rehabilitation and reconstruction. The
present era of competition, cooperation and war boundaries is increasingly blurred, where facts in
the real world without triggering conflicts in peacetime are reasonable enough to be interpreted as
perceptions which are nothing more than transformations of war in a broader sense. If so, then it
can be captured the meaning that various motivations are based on all the expertise of the
calculation carried out certainly not for the purpose of being in vain, so it is very likely that
comparative advantage can be a strategic choice strategy for crisis and disaster management as a
trend that can be felt gives more meaningful meaning in a relationship between parties rather than
visible, a form of cooperation can be seen, but behind it all may be part of the motivation to win a
conflict. Such matter is quite relevant as something that can be admitted to strengthen the fact that
the international system is essentially anarchist in nature.
Therefore, it is sufficient to ensure that comparative advantage can be a strategic solution as a
strategic choice in crisis and disaster management. Comparative advantage is how to achieve
common goals with all the advantages possessed both by organizations and against other
organizations including by the nation state, so that comparative advantage can be a solution that
has the potential to increase strength and ability to create excellence to deal with what is
encountered. If to achieve a common goal with all the advantages carried out through concerted
efforts with all the forces synchronized with various efforts both directly and indirectly
interconnected, then comparative advantage is very appropriate for crisis and disaster
management. And not only that, comparative advantage will truly interpret the meaning of a
relationship, so this provides the understanding and understanding that, "Cooperation is not
comparative advantage, but comparative advantage is certainly cooperation." In this regard, trying
to explore the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in engineering for decision making
that holistically includes comparative advantages, competitive advantages and individuals, using
analytic hierarchie process (AHP) and Fishbone Diagrams in the context of crisis and disaster
management.
Analytic Hierarchie Process (AHP)
In the practice of applying the AHP method, classifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats as criteria elements that can be seen the weight / contribution of these elements, towards
the decision making goals, into alternative solutions for the best / selected priority strategies,
Page 5 of 13
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.76.8521 736
Anyu, J. N., & Dzekashu, W. G. (2020). Freshwater Resource Exploitation: New Security Challenge For Africa. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal,
7(6) 722-731.
including: competitive advantage, comparative advantage, and individual, so that from several
criteria a hierarchy of problems can be formed in the selection of models, shown in Figure 3.1.a.
Alternative A = (w1)(w1A) + (w2)(w2A) + (w3)(w3A) + (w4)(w4A)
Alternative B = (w1)(w1B) + (w2)(w2B) + (w3)(w3B) + (w4)(w4B)
Alternative C = (w1)(w1C) + (w2)(w2C) + (w3)(w3C) + (w4)(w4C)
Figure 1: Analysis of Model Problems in AHP
Source: data processed by the author
Numeric Scale
1
3
5
7
9
CRITERIA 1 CRITERIA 2 CRITERIA 3 CRITERIA 4
STRENGHT WEAKNESS OPPORTUNITY THREAT
CRITERIA 1 1 0,33 3 0,11
CRITERIA 2 3 1 3 0,14
CRITERIA 3 0 0,33 1 0,11
CRITERIA 4 9 7,00 9,00 1
AMOUNT 13 9 16 1
CRITERIA 1 CRITERIA 2 CRITERIA 3 CRITERIA 4
STRENGHT WEAKNESS OPPORTUNITY THREAT
CRITERIA 1 4 2,44 8,00 0,60
CRITERIA 2 8 4 16 0,95
CRITERIA 3 2,67 1,56 4,00 0,31
CRITERIA 4 42 20,00 66,00 4
AMOUNT 56,952 28,000 94,286 5,862
CRITERIA 1 CRITERIA 2 CRITERIA 3 CRITERIA 4 LINE
STRENGHT WEAKNESS OPPORTUNITY THREAT AMOUNT
CRITERIA 1 82,92 44,06 143,62 9,61 280,21 0,086 Ranking 3
CRITERIA 2 149,71 80,63 259,43 17,61 507,39 0,156 Ranking 2
CRITERIA 3 47,11 25,10 82,92 5,54 160,68 0,049 Ranking 4
CRITERIA 4 677,71 365,33 1189,71 80,63 2313,40 0,709 Ranking 1
AMOUNT 957,46 515,13 1675,68 113,40 3261,68
1. THREAT 2. WEAKNESS 3. STRENGHT 4.
1. DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF COMPARATIVE
Numerical Weighting Scale AHP Method of Decision Judgment
Qualitative Scale and Definition
The importance of one matrix element's importance is equally important compared to the other matrix elements
The importance of one matrix element is considered to be slightly more important than another matrix element
The importance of one matrix element's importance is considered quite important compared to the other matrix elements
The importance weight of one matrix element is considered very important compared to other matrix elements.
The importance of one matrix element's importance is considered absolute (very important) compared to the other matrix elements.
Note: The value between the two scales above is defined as having the importance of adjacent scales
THREAT
EIGEN VALUES SHOW CRITERIA RANKING:
2. COUNTING EIGEN VALUES
3. CHECK EIGEN VALUES BY QUADRATING AGAIN EIGEN VALUES
NORMAL KET CRITERIA
OPPORTUNITY
STRENGHT
WEAKNESS
OPPORTUNITY
COMPARATIVE COLUMNS
Page 6 of 13
737
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 6, June-2020
Figure 2: Results of Analysis with AHP
Source: data processed by the author
A B C A B C
A 1 0,20 3 A 1 5 3
B 5 1 7 B 0,20 1 3
C 0,33 0,14 1 C 0,33 0,33 1
A B C AMOUNT P VECTOR A B C AMOUNT P VECTOR
A 3 1 7 11 0,186 A 3 11 21 35,00 0,672
B 12 3 29 44 0,735 B 1,40 3 6,60 11,00 0,211
C 1 0 3 5 0,079 C 0,73 2,33 3 6,07 0,117
60 52,07
A B C A B C
A 1 3 3 A 1 0,20 3
B 0,33 1 2 B 5 1 3
C 0,33 0,50 1 C 0,33 0,33 1
A B C AMOUNT P VECTOR A B C AMOUNT P VECTOR
A 3 7,50 12,00 22,50 0,597 A 3 1,4 6,6 11 0,211
B 1,33 3 5 9,33 0,248 B 11 3 21 35 0,672
C 0,83 2 3 5,83 0,155 C 2 1 3 6 0,117
37,67 52
WEAKNESS THREAT A =
0,086 0,156 0,049 0,709 B =
0,186 0,672 0,597 0,211 x C =
0,016 0,105 0,029 0,150 = 0,300 = 29,98%
WEAKNESS THREAT
0,086 0,156 0,049 0,709
0,735 0,211 0,248 0,672
0,063 0,033 0,012 0,477 = 0,585 = 58,50%
WEAKNESS THREAT
0,086 0,156 0,049 0,709
0,079 0,117 0,155 0,117
0,007 0,018 0,008 0,083 = 0,115 = 11,51% +
100,00%
STRENGHT WEAKNESS
STRENGHT OPPORTUNITY
C
(NUMBERS) →
B
OPPORTUNITY
STRENGHT
STRENGHT OPPORTUNITY
A
(NUMBERS) →
(NUMBERS) →
THREAT
OPPORTUNITY
INDIVIDUAL
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES
INFORMATION
CRITERIA NORMALIZATION CRITERIA CRITERIA 1 CRITERIA 2 CRITERIA 3 CRITERIA 4
CRITERIA 1 0,086 CRITERIA 1 1 0,33 3,00 0,11
CRITERIA 2 0,156 CRITERIA 2 3 1 3 0
CRITERIA 3 0,049 CRITERIA 3 0 0,33 1 0
CRITERIA 4 0,709 CRITERIA 4 9 7,00 9,00 1
AMOUNT 13,333 8,667 16,000 1,365
CRITERIA 1 CRITERIA 2 CRITERIA 3 CRITERIA 4 AMOUNT
CRITERIA 1 0,086 0,052 0,148 0,079 0,364
CRITERIA 2 0,258 0,156 0,148 0,101 0,662 4,246 4
CRITERIA 3 0,029 0,052 0,049 0,079 0,209
CRITERIA 4 0,773 1,089 0,443 0,709 3,015 0,246
AMOUNT 4,250 3
CI
RI
WNV RC or NORMAL CV
0,364 0,086 4,241
0,662 0,156 4,258 Oder
0,209 0,049 4,234 Matrix
3,015 0,709 4,251 RI atau IR 0 0 0,58 0,9 1,12 1,24 1,32 1,41 1,45 1,49
16,983 0,9
AVEREGE 4,246 (LAMBDA) 0,082 divided 0,9 = 0,091
= 9,11%
9,11%
4. CHECKING THE CONSISTENCY RATIO
Multiply the Pairwise Rank Comparison Matrix
Value Calculation (RC) (COMPARATIVE COMPARISON MATRIC)
7
(4 - 1)
CI = = 0,082
2 3 4 5 6
TABEL RI (Random Index)
Consistancy Ratio (CR) (no more than 10%) is good consistency
Weighted Number Vector (WNV) = RC x Pairwise Comparison Matrix
Consistancy Index (CI) = (Lambda-n) / (n-1)
CONSISTANCY RATIO (CR) =
Consistancy Ratio (CR) = CI/RI =
Consistency Vector (VC) = WNV (Weighted Number Vector) / RC (Ranking Criteria)
8 9 10
TOTAL For n = 4, RI (Random Index) = (As per the Table), so that:
1
Page 7 of 13
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.76.8521 738
Anyu, J. N., & Dzekashu, W. G. (2020). Freshwater Resource Exploitation: New Security Challenge For Africa. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal,
7(6) 722-731.
Figure 3.1.b, The results of the analysis using AHP obtained: comparative advantage of 58.50%;
competitive advantage of 29.98%, and; individual by 11.51%, with priority priority criteria: 1.
Threat; 2. Weakness; 3. Strength, and: 4. Opportunity, with a consistency ratio of 9.11%.
Based on AHP results, the highest comparative advantage is obtained compared to competitive and
individual advantages (in the sense of standing on one's own feet in crisis and disaster
management). Here it shows that comparative advantage gives added value in a broad sense in
terms of threats, weaknesses, strengths and opportunities in crisis and disaster management.
Although the results of the AHP can be said to be subjective, they can certainly be encouraging
pemuntahiran, make a positive contribution in the management of crisis and disaster. The priority
order criteria with a consistency ratio below 10% is good consistency, so placing threats as top
priority makes sense. Everything related to crises and disasters focuses on the fact that crises and
disasters are threats, and certainly the threat is dangerous with all its effects. Then, pay attention to
weaknesses as the next sequence.
This is quite relevant, where recognizing and understanding various weaknesses as views in terms
of crises and disasters will be better than looking at strengths or opportunities first, because not
being able to identify symptoms that arise before crises or disasters is including weaknesses and
not strengths or opportunities. No matter how big the strength or opportunity, but only aware of
the situation at the point of crisis or sudden disaster, the strength and opportunity in the period
before the crisis and disaster, such as prevention and avoidance becomes useless, and this is
dangerous. Furthermore, concentration on strength before opportunity is the right thing as SWOT
theory which is the present analysis, looking at internal factors first, external factors, while crisis
and disaster are now and not in the future. In contrast to TOWS which is the future analysis, looking
at external factors and then internal factors. Thus, the preparation of resources as a force will soon
be able to adjust opportunities rather than looking for opportunities before preparing available
resources, because the time span of the crisis is short and decision making and available resources
will determine the effectiveness and efficiency in crisis and disaster management.
Fishbone Diagram
Fishbone Diagrams are often called Cause-and-Effect Diagrams or Ishikawa Diagrams, introduced
by Dr. Kaoru Ishikawa, a quality control expert from Japan, is one of seven basic quality tools.
Fishbone diagrams are used when wanting to identify possible causes of a problem and especially
when a team tends to fall into a routine (Tague, 2005) [7]. Action and improvement steps will be
easier to do if the problem and the root cause of the problem has been found. The benefits of this
fishbone diagram can help to find the root causes of problems in a user friendly manner, where user
friendly tools are preferred by people in the manufacturing industry, whose popular processes have
a wide variety of variables that have the potential to cause problems (Purba, 2008, para. 1-6) [8].
Fishbone diagrams will identify various potential causes of a problem, and analyze the problem
through brainstorming. Problems are broken down into a number of related categories, including
people, materials, procedures, policies, and so on. Each category has causes that need to be
explained through brainstorming.
Page 8 of 13
739
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 6, June-2020
Figure 3: Fishbone Diagram
Source: data processed by the author
Using this fishbone diagram, they are to: (1) help determine the root cause of the problem with a
structured approach; (2) shows the possible causes of variations or differences that occur in a
process; (3) Increase knowledge about the process analyzed by helping everyone to learn more
about various work factors and how these factors are interrelated. Thus, it is hoped that through
fishbone diagrams a picture of comparative advantage will be obtained as the results of AHP can be
chosen as an alternative strategy for crisis and disaster management.
Identification and Definition of Effects
The identification results are based on the formulation of the problem, namely the choice of
strategies which are most likely to contribute to minimizing risk and increasing certainty as a form
of integrity of crisis and disaster management so as to prevent or avoid crises and disasters as well
as quickly restore the situation back to normal or cope with disasters. For this reason, the factual
potential that threatens integrity in crisis and disaster management is the most likely factual entry
as a result of all causes created in the fishbone diagram. As is known, that "disintegrity" is the
opposite of integrity, which can be interpreted as disintegration, disunity among the elements.
Integrity aspects, including aspects of ends, means, and ways as elements of the chosen strategy.
Therefore, the high gap of differences is the primary cause of the integration aspect of ends, so that
the potential for conflicts that occur will pose a threat to the integrity of crisis and disaster
management. Then, gaps and not synergy in the aspect of integration mean that the potential
conflicts that occur will most likely factually threaten integrity.
ENDS
Multipurpose Complex
Determination Selfish Domination COOPERATION COMPETITION INDIVIDUAL
NON STATE ACTORS GOVERNMENT
PUBLIC
Different Habits Inequality
1. IDENTIFY & DEFENSE WITH CLEAR RESULTS OR RESULTS THAT WILL BE ANALYZED.
2. IDENTIFICATION OF ANY MAIN CAUSES AFFECTING RESULTS OR RESULTS.
3. IDENTIFICATION OF THE FACTORS THAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THE MAIN CAUSES.
4. IDENTIFICATION OF MORE DETAILS LEVEL VARIOUS CAUSES & CONTINUE ORGANIZERS UNDER THE CATEGORY / CAUSES CONNECTED
5. ANALYSIS OF DIAGRAMS FOR HELP IDENTIFYING CAUSES THAT GUARANTEE FURTHER EXAMINATION.
CAUSE
Action and improvement steps will be easier to do if the problem & the root cause of the problem has been found
FISHBONE DIAGRAM ANALYSIS STEPS:
EFFECT
GENERAL AREA
MEANS CATEGORY
FACTOR
BETWEEN PARTIES SUBPROBLEM
Dependency
PROCEDURES, NORMA & RULES
MAIN PROBLEM
Inconcistent & not Implementative
INDIVIDUAL
GAPS & NOT SYNERGY THE PROBLEMS
SUBPROBLEM CHOICE STRATEGY, BETWEEN:
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES
PEOPLE & AREAS COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES
Relationships are
not smooth
METHOD & SYSTEM
DIFFERENT SLAPES MAIN PROBLEM
GOAL
INCOMPATIBILITY & INNECTION THE PROBLEMS
SECTORAL
GENERAL AREA
CATEGORY
FACTOR
No Participation
WAYS
TROUBLESHOOTING WITH ANALYSIS AS A RESULT OF USING:
IDENTIFYING THE ROOT CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM / CAUSE BASED ON THE RESULTS, PROBLEMS,
OR CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT THE RIGHT ACTIONS CAN BE TAKEN
FISHBONE DIAGRAM
Page 9 of 13
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.76.8521 740
Anyu, J. N., & Dzekashu, W. G. (2020). Freshwater Resource Exploitation: New Security Challenge For Africa. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal,
7(6) 722-731.
Then, mismatches and asynchronous aspects of the ways will result in potential conflicts that will
also most likely be factual threatening the integrity of crisis and disaster management. Thus it is
described through a fishbone diagram, because it is undeniable that cooperation is very important
for crisis and disaster management. However, it is realized that cooperation does not always
produce positive contributions between the parties that collaborate, it can even be among them,
there are those who do not get positive feedback. This is because of interests, so to be able to find
the best strategy choices done through ends, means, and ways as the basic elements of the strategy.
Identification of each major cause
As an explanation of the causes that lead to consequences, namely the potential for conflicts most
likely to become factual threatening the integrity of crisis and disaster management, are: the gap
gap; gaps and not synergy; as well as mismatches and asynchronies, as in accordance with each
aspect of the integrity of crisis and disaster management, then sub-problems / main causes of
problems can be identified, namely:
a. Friction on cooperation which is the intersection of aspects of ends by multipurpose causes
includes with ends, related to matters of interest;
b. Friction on competition which is an intersection of aspects of ends because complexity
includes relations with ends, related to matters of interest;
c. Friction in the individual in the aspect of ends due to the lack of participation includes
relations with ends, related to matters of interest;
d. In the elements of people and regions which are sub-aspects of the means, there is a smooth
relationship of mutually beneficial cooperation and synergy as a logical demand in
interdependence between parties, making regions and people from various backgrounds to
collaborate in the context of crisis and disaster management;
e. In the procedure element, norms and rules which are sub-aspects of means are inconsistent
in their commitment and implementation as agreed upon;
f. In the system and method element which is a sub-aspect of ways is the existence of
cohesiveness that causes mismatches and unsynchronization in crisis and disaster
management;
g. In the element of government which is a sub-aspect of ways, in its dominance there are
sometimes discrepancies and asynchronies with the community in the context of the
dynamics of understanding and developing democracy in the dynamic life of a nation;
h. In the sectoral element which is a sub-aspect of ways, prioritizing the ego in achieving certain
interests, causes mismatches and asynchronous ways along with the dynamic life of a nation;
i. In the non-state actors element, which is a sub-aspect of the way of its determination amidst
the dominance of the state, it influences the dynamic conditions of a nation, resulting in
discrepancies and asynchronies in matters relating to ways;
j. In the element of society which is a sub-aspect of ways, differences in habits also affect the
suitability and synchronization with matters relating to ways.
Identification of Factors That Cause the Main Causes
It is time to enter the identification of the factors that are the main causes, including: complexity; no
participation; non-smoothness; interdependence; lack of cooperation relations; inconsistent with
commitment and not implementative; non-alignment; ego; determination; domination, as well as;
different habits. At this stage, using a theoretical approach, the writer focuses more on conflict
Page 10 of 13
741
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 6, June-2020
theory as a review / study of theory, according to the authors, interaction will not reject the view of
potential conflict and a conflict.
a. Conflict theory (Anjal K. Dahal, 2016)[9], conflict is the result of preferences or interests that
are incompatible preferences although the conflict also does not have to be in the form of
violence or war; according to (Meliala, 2002) [10], conflict in the context of social change is
basically a model of community transformation through a negating cross pattern between
elements that already exist and live in society; and according to (Louis Kriesberg, 2007)[11],
conflict in a sociological perspective is a situation where two or more actors, such as
individuals, groups, or communities pursue incompatible goals including differences of
opinion about the distribution, feasibility and legitimacy of a particular object . Listening to
the three theories of conflict, it seems clear that these theories strongly support that the
causative factors from the main causes as outlined, are the potential for conflict and conflict.
b. Theories of factors causing conflict: according to (Fisher & Dkk, 2002) [12], namely:
community relations, assume that conflict is caused by ongoing polarization, distrust and
hostility between different groups in a society; and conflict transformation, assuming that
conflict is caused by social, cultural and economic problems. This theory reinforces the
assumptions, perceptions and understanding of point "3.2.3.a."
c. According to (Richard L. Daft, 1997)[13], namely: jurisdictional confusion, conflicts can arise
when the boundaries of work and responsibilities are unclear; when the assignment is
unclear, people will evade their responsibilities or who owns the resources; communication
damage, in communication, sometimes an error occurs; poor communication causes
misinterpretation and misunderstanding; in some instances, information is deliberately
withheld, which can jeopardize trust between members and lead to prolonged conflict;
conversely, when responsibilities are given clearly and predictably, people will know where
they are; different goals, conflicts often occur just because people are aiming for different
goals. Different goals are natural in organizations; differences in power and status, occur
when a group has an influence that can be denied by others; low achieving individuals /
groups may reject their low status; People can engage in conflict to increase power and
influence within a group or organization. This opinion emphasizes point "3.2.3.a."
Based on the theory of the causes of conflict: according to (Anjal K. Dahal, 2016); (Meliala, 2002);
(Louis Kriesberg, 2007); (Fisher & Dkk, 2002); (Richard L. Daft, 1997), can be identified, that the
factors that cause the main causes, among others: a crisis of trust, unclear authority and
responsibility, not communicative, not informative, not coordinative, differences in goals and
interests, transformation conflict, as well as lack of socialization, comprehensively constitute the
potential for conflict and conflict. These theories can be understood in line with the results of
identifying the main causes and definitions of effects, in the description of the fishbone (figure 3.2).
In connection with this, the desire of each individual as a personality in a complementary society
can be realized in every change of time, where the realization of a harmonious order of life in a
peaceful environment is the hope of every human individual in this world. However, because of the
variety and diversity of individual interests in achieving goals and individuals in a community
(collectivity) having the potential for conflict space, it is not possible to eliminate conflicts
altogether. Therefore, absorption of potential conflicts through controlling the balance of interests
will be more able to control relations in the stability of dynamic life.
Page 11 of 13
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.76.8521 742
Anyu, J. N., & Dzekashu, W. G. (2020). Freshwater Resource Exploitation: New Security Challenge For Africa. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal,
7(6) 722-731.
A More Detailed Identification of Various Causes, and Organize Below Related
Categories / Causes
At this stage, it can be done by asking "Why" questions, in order to obtain relevant results as the
analysis process is carried out in order to answer the questions that have been determined as the
formulation of the problem.
Table 1: Summary of Fishbone Brainstorming Diagrams
Possible root cause Discussion Primary cause
Different slapes
Ends Complex The waning spirit of togetherness
Multipurpose Triggered from differences of interest
No participation Careless
Gaps & not synergy
Means Dependency Crisis of confidence
Relationships are not smooth Unclear authority & responsibility
Inconcistent & not implementative Not communicative
Incompatibility & innectionon
Ways
Domination Not informative
Selfish Not coordinative
Different habits Less persuasive approach
Determination Changes in people's lifestyle
Inequality Less accommodating, inflexible & less adaptive
Source: data processed by the author
a. In table 3.2.4, why does the root cause lead to a primary cause for Goal, "The choice of the
right strategy for crisis and disaster management, so that conflicts that are most likely to be
factual threaten the integrity of crisis and disaster management"? Answer: because the root
of the problem causes the inability to reduce the potential causes of the development of "Gap
gap, inequality and inequality as well as mismatches and Inynchronous" in interactions that
result in the vulnerability of the aspects of ends, means, and ways of integration, so that
conflict has the potential to be the most likely to threaten the integrity of crisis management
and disaster.
b. Why might the root cause of the problem cause "Gap differences, gaps and disaggregation as
well as discrepancies and asynchronous" triggers that can undermine the aspects of ends,
means and ways, thus potentially leading to disintegrity in crisis and disaster management?
Answer: because the root of the problem which is a substance that absorbs potential conflicts
does not take place as it should, the "Gap of differences, inequalities and inequalities as well
as discrepancies and asynchronous" in interactions increasingly weakens the integrity
aspect of ends, means, and ways, so that conflict has the potential to most likely become
factual threatens the integrity of crisis management and management.
Listen carefully, that all the root of the problem is the essence that must be resolved / solved so that
aspects of the integrity of ends, means, and ways can be more actual for crisis and disaster
management, where the development of conflict is one of the essence that is most likely to factually
threaten the integrity of crisis management and disaster. Thus, so that the strength and ability to
minimize risk and uncertainty are better able to accelerate the recovery of the situation to normal
again. That way, it can be better understood that:
Page 12 of 13
743
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 6, June-2020
a. Cooperation does not always make a positive contribution to the collaborating party,
because cooperation may be a way to win conflict and cooperation is not a comparative
advantage;
b. Comparative advantage is ensured fruitful cooperation that absolutely gives added value to
the strength and ability to minimize risk and uncertainty, in order to quickly return to normal
situations. More than that, comparative advantage means the meaning of a relationship as a
positive interaction that benefits all parties;
c. Competition can lead to conflict, which is part of a dynamic life that can not be avoided, so
that in terms of crisis and disaster management, comparative advantage is more promising
as the best choice strategy in crisis and disaster management;
d. Individual can be interpreted as indifference to the meaning of relationships in the
environment amid dynamic interactions can have a detrimental impact on the
implementation of crisis and disaster management.
Based on the results of the analysis using AHP and Fishbone, it is found that conflicts that are part
of life are among the essence of symptoms that can cause crises that can lead to disasters in crisis
and disaster management relations in a broad sense, where conflicts can mean not only between
people but also between humans and nature and the environment. Therefore, among the strategies
presented for crisis and disaster management, which include competitive advantage, comparative
advantage, and individual, the comparative advantage strategy can become an increasingly strategic
choice as a strategic decision. Furthermore, throughout the AHP and Fishbone analysis process as
well as the results of analysis and study, it does not mean and does not intend to reduce the value,
meaning and meaning of a collaboration, but rather rather add value to a collaboration, where
comparative advantage is believed to be absolute resulting in a more conducive collaboration
benefits can be felt both directly and indirectly as a positive conflict transformation in crisis and
disaster management. This is very important, because the strategy requires coordination,
identification of supporting factors, and has a theme in accordance with the principles of rational
implementation of ideas and have a way to achieve an objective effectively and efficiently.
At present conditions, comparative advantage tends to be played sectorally, making sectoral egos
thicker, where each with its advantages tends to try to dominate sectorally, so that synergy in a
partnership is not optimal. This can be shown by more ego action independently higher than in
synergy in a peaceful period. Whereas the superiority of each is the strength and ability that can
become integrity when held in synergy both during the war and in peace. Therefore, the
actualization of comparative advantage as a strategy that is concentrated consistently on synergy
in a unity of integrity in crisis and disaster management will be the strength and ability to have
competitive advantage over crises and disasters.
Implication
Crisis and disaster are implications of the weak identification of symptoms of crisis and disaster, so
that it is found that the conflict is between the essence of the emergence of crises and disasters that
are observed as the interaction between humans and humans with nature and the environment, the
comparative advantage becomes increasingly important. If the symptoms of a crisis and disaster do
not become a priority concern, so comparative advantage is not a priority choice for crisis and
disaster management strategies, it will have implications for the ability of crisis and disaster
management to have high risk consequences of crises and disasters.
Page 13 of 13
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.76.8521 744
Anyu, J. N., & Dzekashu, W. G. (2020). Freshwater Resource Exploitation: New Security Challenge For Africa. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal,
7(6) 722-731.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
As a hypothesis, that comparative advantage is believed to absolutely produce conducive
cooperation that contributes added value in managing crises and disasters, so it is a very strategic
choice of strategy for crisis and disaster management.
Recommendations
By considering the implications of not implementing comparative advantage as a strategic choice
for the implementation of crisis and disaster management, then as a strategic decision it can be
recommended comparative advantage as the chosen crisis and disaster management strategy.
References
[1] Giddens, A. (1995). Giddens, Anthony. (Admin, Editor) Retrieved May 19, 2020, from Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/;
[2] Horton, P. B., & Hunt, C. L, (1987). Sociology. In H. &. Hunt, Sosiologi (D. Aminudin, & Dra Tita Sobari, Trans., Ke
enam ed.). London, Jakarta: Erlangga;
[3] Schaefer, R. T., & P.Lmm, R, (1998). Sociology. Newyork: McGraw-Hill;
[4] KBBI, & online. (n.d.). online/daring (dalam jaringan). Retrieved May 19, 2020, from https://kbbi.web.id/;
[5] Ibid. (n.d.);
[6] Agoes, E. R., & Profesor of Universitas Padjajaran, H. I, (2005). Hukum Internasional dan Kaitannya dengan
Bencana Alam Tsunami. Jurnal Sosiohumaniora, Vol. 7, No. 2, Juli 2005 : 110 - 119, 10;
[7] Tague, (2005, p. 247). In A. N. Susanto, Jurus Jitu Membangun Omset Milyaran. PT. Vindra Sushantco Putra. 2015;
[8] Purba, (2008, para. 1-6). In A. N. Susanto, Jurus Jitu Membangun Bisnis Berkah Omsey Milyaran (p. 133).
Yogyakarta, DIY, Indonesia: PT. Vindra Sushanco Putra. 2015;
[9] Anjal K. Dahal, (. (2016). Introduction to International Relation. In D. U. Bakri, Dasar-Dasar Hubungan
Internasional (Cetakan kesatu 2017 ed.). Depok, West Java, Indonesia: PT. Desindo Putra Mandiri;
[10] Meliala, (2002). In T. Lindsay, Mas Achmad Santosa, & T. Lindsay (Ed.), Indonesia Law and Society (Cetakan
kedua, 2008 ed.). The Federation Press;
[11] Louis Kriesberg, (2007). Reconciliation: Aspects, Growth, and Sequences. International Journal of Peace Studies,
Volume 12, Number 1, Spring/Summer 2007;
[12] Fisher & Dkk, (. (2002). In (. Fisher & Dkk, Sex and Sexuality in Contemporery Indonesia. Jakarta, DKI Jakarta:
Yayasa Pustaka Obor Indonesia;
[13] Richard L. Daft, (1997). Management. Dryden Press, 1997.