**1. Introduction**

Strategic sustainability infers a built-in resistance to the prominence and effects of crisis events. A common way to maximise society sustainability is by maintaining the emergency response via regular exercises. Inter-organisational exercises are supposed to help authorities to become better at handling accidents, crises and disasters. Exercises involving different emergency services are carried out with the purpose of strengthening the inter-organisational ability to deal with difficult events that require extensive resources in a short time. There are, however, few studies of the efficiency of inter-organisational exercises in terms of learning and utility. One exception is Scandinavia, where inter-organisational exercises at sea and ashore have been studied [1–5]. The concept of inter-organisational exercises, as it is used in Scandinavia, describes exercises aiming to prevent organisational fragmentation, and develop integration and distribution of tasks [6,7].

In this article, we compare data from nine exercises (three ONSOs and six OFFSOs) from five published studies in order to find similarities and di fferences in terms of learning and utility. Comparing inter-organisational exercises arranged by on-shore and o ff-shore organisations can reveal context specific challenges and di fferences in learning outcomes. When extrapolated, it can pin-point strengths and weaknesses in di fferent contexts of emergency preparedness. Such knowledge can, in turn, offer suggestions on how to improve the outcome from exercises and emergency response.

During the managemen<sup>t</sup> of a societal crisis, the need for collaboration between emergency services has been actualised. As a result of criticism towards the managemen<sup>t</sup> of rescue work during the 2011 attacks on the governmen<sup>t</sup> blocks in Oslo and the Labour Parties Youth League summer camp on the island of Utoya, Norway in 2012, an extra principle was added to the national emergency preparedness legislation. It was the principle of collaboration, which was supposed to facilitate inter-organisational actions during emergencies [8]. In Sweden, as well as in Norway, where the data for this study were collected, the governments emphasise the importance of exercises to develop collaboration on di fferent societal levels. In particular, inter-organisational collaboration is highlighted as a particularly important task to be practiced, specifically by getting employees to take the initiative to help each other across organisational boundaries [9–12]. This is especially true during time constraining emergencies [13,14].

In several studies, the inclusion of collaborative elements in exercises has proved to contribute to learning, and learning contributes to usefulness in real life situations. However, the studies show that even if there was a significant learning e ffect because of collaboration, the impact was, in some cases, moderate [13,15,16] and emergency sta ff have di fficulties in learning from past mistakes [17]. Even if emergency response organisations are supposed to collaborate, they tend to prioritise the specific tasks they are trained for, instead of seeing the big picture [18]. Sta ff may engage in tasks they are accustomed to but are inactive when unaccustomed tasks need to be performed [19]. This is contradictory to collaboration, i.e., only focusing on one's own responsibilities, but being prepared to take initiatives beyond [20].

Here, learning is studied at the collective level [21]. Di fferent patterns of action are built within the organisations, where individuals share experiences, learn from each other, and develop common approaches [22]. Learning occurs from communication across borders, di fferent organisational agendas, the use of common resources and the di fferent skills of collaborating professionals. According to Stein, the knowledge can be shared by permeable boundaries, ensuring multifunctional networks and integration. Demarcated boundaries and hierarchical grouping where activities are distributed into segmented tasks, on the other hand, may prevent knowledge sharing [21]. Institutional learning is accomplished by repeated action patterns, which over time create institutions that are stable in nature [23]. In this study, learning is considered to be the e ffect of a successful inter-organisational exercise, and learning is assumed to have impact on actual practice. Successful exercises, in terms of learning, may integrate professions at the fictive accident site [24]. Therefore, learning may occur when new patterns of thought are constructed and considered useful [25,26]. During exercises, learning is assumed to stand for change and development [27] and contribute to being open to di fferent options and encourages initiatives to collaborate with others to achieve improved results [28]. According to Stein, inter-organisational learning builds trust, team building and coherence crossing professional borders [21]. Hence, learning can facilitate the development of routines, rules and models that have influence on daily work [29,30]

#### **2. Maritime and Land-Based Collaboration**

The collaborative culture seems to be di fferent between emergency sta ff in maritime versus land-based contexts. Collaboration in the maritime context crosses national and cultural borders and is, in contrast to land-based, regulated by bi- and multi-lateral agreements and treaties. One such example of collaboration is in the high north area, where resources for search and rescue missions are lacking. Even if some areas, such as coastal Norway close to the mainland, are well-developed, distant areas are wastelands that are occasionally tra fficked by crowded cruise vessels and oil installations. The risks related to going aground or collisions with ice, or fire are not in accordance with the number of available rescue services, especially in remote areas. Disasters in wastelands and distant maritime areas put collaboration over organisational and national borders to the test [31]. Rescue missions at sea are, however, performed by all available actors and not just those who are specialised in emergency response. Long distances and severe weather conditions have forced different parties to collaborate, regardless of whether they are publicly financed rescue services, voluntary financed services (e.g., Red Cross and Society for Sea Rescue), fishing fleets or the merchant navy [32].

Several catastrophes have led to updated and sharpened legislations in the maritime context. This was intensified after a series of shipping accidents with grave environmental damages during late 1960s and early 1970s. The subsequent investigations concluded that the main cause of these accidents was human errors, resulting from poor training and lack of inter-organisational competencies [33]. Subsequently, maritime mass-casualty disasters like the Scandinavian Star disaster in 1990 [34], the Estonia disaster in 1994 [35] and the Costa Concordia wreckage in 2012 [36] shed light on the need to put more efforts in inter-organisational education and training. Hence, the maritime domain started harmonising and regulating its educational standards worldwide.

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO)—a technical agency of the United Nations—was introduced in 1959 to harmonise standards of international maritime activities, including training and qualification of mariners who navigate ships. In 1978, the IMO launched its first educational standards—the Standards of Training, Certification and Watch Keeping for Seafarers (STCW). It was considered a breakthrough, as there were practically no international standards in maritime exercises [37]. However, the STCW did not succeed in harmonizing the already established national standards around the world. Several revisions seeking to repair the shortcomings of its predecessors were made, and new conventions were prepared including the recent Manilla amendments, STCW 2010. STCW 2010 highlighted and homogenised concepts of intra-organisational exercises for mariners. The STCW standardised security exercises in different scenarios such as attacks by pirates and operations in polar waters [38].

With regard to collaboration during emergencies in land-based contexts, there are no such standards as those provided by IMO. Some standardisation in crisis organisations and crisis work can be seen within certain covenants like the European Union. Nonetheless, there is still a lack of international as well as national standards in inter-organisational exercises. At the country level, there is some fragmentation. It has been reported about intra-organisational autonomy during emergency response operations from Sweden and Norway. The official evaluation following the 2011 terrorist attacks in Norway found, among other conclusions, that the emergency response had been insufficient, and that inter-organisational collaboration efforts in particular had been inadequate [10]. An article titled "Why is collaboration minimized at the accident scene?" reported on the difference between rhetoric and practice in connection with accident work. Collaboration is seen as a rhetorical ideal rather than something that is carried out in real life accident work. The results from the study showed that police force, fire fighters and prehospital healthcare staff have an intention to develop excellent forms of collaboration at the accident scene but avoid this because of asymmetries in standards and lack of incentives [39]. A study from a tunnel exercise in Norway showed a risk for competition within organisations with unclear hierarchies. A lack of clarity in the distribution of roles and power struggles was identified as potential risks affecting the handling of emergencies [40]. Short distances and high accessibility can also be reasons why land-based emergency staff can uphold a degree of autonomy. In contrast to operations at sea, land-based operations can most often be reached by all the required resources within reasonable time and normally do not need to rely on each other's willingness to cross professional borders [41]. Information exchange during land-based emergency response operations is also known to uphold a certain degree of autonomy. Each organisation in the response network has operational field units at different levels, different functional command structures, separate back offices and intraorganisational radio communications channels [42,43].

Scandinavian countries like Norway and Sweden have a lot of similarities and few di fferences. Because of a long border between Norway and Sweden, partly in populated areas, they have agreements on sharing resources and coordinating actions during emergencies. The response organisations of the two countries perform common inter-organisational exercises; moreover, the radiocommunication systems, "Nødnett" in Norway and "Rakel" in Sweden, have been connected since 2016 (MSB 2018). The open borders between the countries have a long tradition, based on similar languages, constitutional monarchies, democracy and governments appointed by a parliament in both countries. They share national emergency preparedness principles of responsibility, equality and proximity in their respective legislations [8].

The dependence between organisations at incident locations is well known, which justifies the need for inter-organisational exercises to be conducted regularly [39,44]. Obviously, there are similarities and di fferences between OFFSOs and ONSOs' collaborative strategies during emergencies. After decades of naval disasters, OFFSOs have developed harmonised standards, while, in the ONSO context, the routines are still fragmented. The ONSO context seems to be more a ffected by the perception of collaboration as a rhetorical ideal while OFFSOs are characterised by a willingness to cross organisational boarders. We still do not know if collaboration exercises di ffer in their impact on OFFSOs and ONSOs. Despite a lack of studies [45], inter-organisational exercises arranged by o ff-shore organisations (OFFSOs) as well as on-shore organisations (ONSOs) are practised at considerable cost, with the supposition that they contribute to learning and utility in real life disasters [3]. We aim to find similarities and di fferences in the outcome from inter-organisational exercises, in terms of learning and utility, in the maritime versus land-based contexts. The study is supposed to reveal context-specific challenges, weaknesses and di fferences in traditions of emergency preparedness in order to sugges<sup>t</sup> how to improve the outcome from inter-organisational exercises [46].
