An example of how change could benefit organizations to realize their goals was prior to 9/11 in the US most disaster planning and management was done at the local level. Municipalities, counties and states did their own thing with planning so then if a disaster struck each agency of each municipality, county and state had their own plan, separate lines of authority and separate communication channels. Agencies continued to bump into each other claiming jurisdiction and control. Because of this, the National Incident Management System was created. This setup a framework of how a disaster was to be managed with a standardized program to deliver relief, communications, financing, administration and command and control. It’s not perfect but better.

In like manner, the reading “Bureaucracy and the Quality of Mercy” pointed out, “The UN should designate a lead agency for each specific internal refugee emergency, and define much more clearly lead agency responsibilities.” This idea can help reduce the bureaucracy to get aid to where it’s needed in a timelier manner. But to take that one step further, if there are five groups working to provide clean water, for example, they can be better communicate and organize around getting water where it needs to go, rather than working independently. Coordinating their plan doesn’t eliminate their independence as an NGO but creates a better framework for delivery of relief.

This kind of change benefits humanitarian organizations better by providing quality and reliable relief while allowing for more flexibility and adaptability to change. Change is usually the only constant denominator in disaster relief so by better coordinated efforts and information sharing reduces the problem of being caught short because of not knowing what else was going on.