1887
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2799-6190
  • E-ISSN: 2799-8592

Abstract

Accurate, timely, and trusted communication in appropriate languages and cultural frames and through appropriate channels is vital to achieving principles of equity and inclusivity in crisis settings. However, organizations engaging in multilingual and multicultural crisis communication can struggle to achieve such communication and assess their communicative capacities. Maturity models are well-established instruments used to understand, review, and assess processes and practices within organizations. This article discusses the development of a crisis translation maturity model to assist organizations in evaluating and improving their multilingual crisis communication efforts. The model does not evaluate translation per se; it evaluates organizational capability to engage in translation in crisis settings. The model presented here builds on a previously published iteration. The current iteration aimed to refine the model and was co-designed with stakeholders from 11 organizations across two design workshops using a multiagency design-thinking methodology. Design thinking was chosen for this research because it is a collaborative approach to problem solving that prioritizes creativity and innovation, user-centeredness and involvement, iteration and experimentation, and interdisciplinary collaboration. This approach allowed us to co-design with stakeholders a model that considers crisis translation capabilities along 17 evaluative categories, with each category described across five maturity levels: ad hoc, repeatable, defined, managed, and optimizing. The categories are all defined in detail and the corresponding maturity levels are explained to help members of an organization evaluate their current crisis translation capabilities and discern the changes that would be required to improve their level of crisis translation maturity. The objective of the research described in this article is to present a version of a crisis translation maturity model that will now be field-tested, customized, and refined. We plan to conduct further tests with stakeholders in authentic settings to produce improved versions of the model going forward.

Available under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.54754/incontext.v4i2.98
2024-11-30
2026-04-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ambrose, Gavin and Paul Harris
    (2009) Basics Design 08: Design Thinking. Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bititci, Umit S., Patrizia Garengo, Aylin Ates and Sai S. Nudurupati
    (2015) Value of maturity models in performance measurement. International Journal of Production Research, 53(10), 3062–3085. 10.1080/00207543.2014.970709
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.970709 [Google Scholar]
  3. Buchanan, Richard
    (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Caralli, Richard, Mark Knight and Austin Montgomery
    (2012) Maturity models 101: A primer for applying maturity models to smart grid security, resilience, and interoperability [White paper]. Carnegie Mellon University.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Carvalho, João Vidal, Álvaro Rocha and António Abreu
    (2016) Maturity models of healthcare information systems and technologies: A literature review. Journal of Medical Systems, 40(6), 131. 10.1007/s10916‑016‑0486‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-016-0486-5 [Google Scholar]
  6. Coombs, Timothy W. and Elina R. Tachkova
    (2023) Extending the value of crisis translation in crisis communication. InSharon O’Brien & Federico M. Federici (Eds.), Translating Crises (pp.37–48). Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity
    European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (2022) ENISA CSIRT Maturity Framework: Updated and Improved. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Federici, Federico M., Sharon O’Brien, Patrick Cadwell, Jay Marlowe, Brian Gerber and Olga Davis
    (2019) International network in crisis translation: Recommendations on policies. RetrievedAugust 9, 2024fromhttps://doras.dcu.ie/23880/
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Frisk, Jane Elisabeth and Frank Bannister
    (2022) Applying design thinking to the decision- making process: A field study in Swedish local authorities. Management Decision, 60(1), 66–85. 10.1108/MD‑03‑2020‑0384
    https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2020-0384 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gholamizadeh, Kamran, Esmaeil Zarei, Saman Poursiahbidi and Omid Kalatpour
    (2022) A hybrid framework to analyze crisis management system maturity in sociotechnical systems. Journal of Safety Science and Resilience, 3(4), 302–320. 10.1016/j.jnlssr.2022.06.00
    https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jnlssr.2022.06.00 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gimenez, Raquel, Leire Labaka and Josune Hernantes
    (2017) A maturity model for the involvement of stakeholders in the city resilience building process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1211, 7–16. 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Humphrey, Watts S.
    (1988) Characterizing the software process: A maturity framework. IEEE Software, 5(2), 73–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Katuu, Shadrack
    (2019) Diverse Applications and Transferability of Maturity Models. IGI Global. 10.4018/978‑1‑5225‑7080‑6
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7080-6 [Google Scholar]
  14. Liedtka, Jeanne
    (2015) Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938. 10.1111/jpim.12163
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163 [Google Scholar]
  15. McConnell, Allan and Lynn Drennan
    (2006) Mission impossible? Planning and preparing for crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(2), 59–70. 10.1111/j.1468‑5973.2006.00482.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2006.00482.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Micheli, Pietro, Sarah J. S. Wilner, Sabeen Hussain Bhatti, Matteo Mura and Michael B. Beverland
    (2019) Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124–148. 10.1111/jpim.12466
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12466 [Google Scholar]
  17. Mintrom, Michael and Joannah Luetjens
    (2016) Design thinking in policymaking processes: Opportunities and challenges. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(3), 391–402. 10.1111/1467‑8500.12211
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12211 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mohamed, Sherif and Xiaobo Qu
    (2018) Organisational Maturity for Disaster Preparedness. Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Mulder, Femke
    (2020) Humanitarian data justice: A structural data justice lens on civic technologies in post-earthquake Nepal. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 28(4), 432–445. 10.1111/1468‑5973.12335
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12335 [Google Scholar]
  20. O’Brien, Sharon
    (2022) Crisis translation: A snapshot in time. INContext: Studies in Translation and Interculturalism, 2(1), 84–108. 10.54754/incontext.v2i1.12
    https://doi.org/10.54754/incontext.v2i1.12 [Google Scholar]
  21. O’Brien, Sharon and Patrick Cadwell
    (2022) Communicating COVID-19 in multiple languages: A maturity model assessment of Ireland’s crisis communication practice. Revista de Llengua i Dret [Journal of Language and Law], 771, 1–17. 10.2436/rld.i77.2022.3630
    https://doi.org/10.2436/ rld.i77.2022.3630 [Google Scholar]
  22. O’Brien, Sharon, Patrick Cadwell and Alicja Zajdel
    (2021) Communicating Covid-19: Translation and trust in Ireland’s response to the pandemic. Dublin City University. https://www.dcu.ie/sites/default/files/inline-files/covid_report_compressed.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  23. O’Brien, Sharon, Federico M. Federici, Patrick Cadwell, Jay Marlowe and Brian Gerber
    (2018) Language translation during disaster: A comparative analysis of five national approaches. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 311, 627–636. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.07.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijdrr.2018.07.006 [Google Scholar]
  24. O’Mathúna, Dónal P., Carla Parra Escartín, Proinsias Roche and Jay Marlowe
    (2020) Engaging citizen translators in disasters: Virtue ethics in response to ethical challenges. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 15(1), 57–79. 10.1075/tis.20003.oma
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20003.oma [Google Scholar]
  25. Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada
    Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada (2023) Official Languages Maturity Model (OLMM). Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada. RetrievedAugust 9, 2024fromhttps://www.clo-ocol.gc.ca/en/tools-resources/official-languages-maturity-model-olmm
  26. Orru, Kati, Margo Klaos, Kristi Nero, Friedrich Gabel, Sten Hansson and Tor-Olav Nævestad
    (2023) Imagining and assessing future risks: A dynamic scenario-based social vulnerability analysis framework for disaster planning and response. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 31(4), 995–1008. 10.1111/1468‑5973.12436
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468- 5973.12436 [Google Scholar]
  27. Peffers, Ken, Tuure Tuunanen, Marcus A. Rothenberger and Samir Chatterjee
    (2007) A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. 10.2753/MIS0742‑1222240302
    https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302 [Google Scholar]
  28. Reed, Mark
    (2022, August9 2024) Should we banish the word “stakeholder”?Fast Track Impact. https://www.fasttrackimpact.com/post/why-we-shouldn-t-banish-the-word-stakeholder
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Reynolds, Barbara and Matthew W. Seeger
    (2005) Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. Journal of Health Communication, 10(1), 43–55. 10.1080/10810730590904571
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730590904571 [Google Scholar]
  30. Rosenstock, Christian, Robert S. Johnston and Larry M. Anderson
    (2000, September7–16). Maturity model implementation and use: A case study. Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Houston, TX. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/maturity-model-implementation-case-study-8882
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ruohonen, Heini and Klas Backholm
    (2023) Matter of trust: How to include digital volunteers in crisis management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 31(4), 843–852. 10.1111/1468‑5973.12484
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12484 [Google Scholar]
  32. Treurniet, Willem and Jeroen Wolbers
    (2021) Codifying a crisis: Progressing from information sharing to distributed decision-making. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 29(1), 23–35. 10.1111/1468‑5973.12323
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12323 [Google Scholar]
  33. United Nations General Assembly
    United Nations General Assembly (2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution A/RES/70/71. RetrievedAugust 9, 2024fromhttps://sdgs.un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-17981
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wendler, Roy
    (2012) The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology, 54(12), 1317–1339. 10.1016/j.infsof.2012.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.infsof.2012.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  35. World Health Organization
    World Health Organization (2023) WHO Principles for Effective Communications. RetrievedAugust 9, 2024fromhttps://www.who.int/about/communications/principles
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.54754/incontext.v4i2.98
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error