National Incident Management Systems

Session 6 Slide Deck

Session Objectives

1 Discuss alternative models to NIMS ICS

2 Cite potential positive and negative

attributes of the ICS

3 Discuss some of the limitations of the ICS

and obstacles to effective implementation

4 Understand how to utilize information about

limitations and obstacles

Importance

• Become a better participant within ICS structures

• Understand the context in which the ICS operates

• Understand the challenges faced by the system in implementation

Alternative models and the NIMS ICS

• NIMS ICS designed to be universal

• Alternatives to NIMS ICS not supposed to be used

• Many different models were used for decades within the fire discipline

• Most models based on either the FIRESCOPE ICS or the Fireground Command System

FIRESCOPE ICS

• 1960s response to a series of wildfires

• Interagency group convened to solve problems in 1972

• Outcome was Wildfire Incident Command System

• Grew in popularity

• Adopted and adapted by fire departments and other disciplines

FIRESCOPE ICS and NIMS ICS

• FIRESCOPE ICS most similar to NIMS ICS

• Intelligence function different– NIMS ICS allows addition of 6th functional area

for intelligence

– FIRESCOPE located information and intelligence functions within Planning Section

Fireground Command System

• Chief Brunacini at Pheonix Fire Departments– Recognized similar problems to those in wildland

firefighting

– Believed a system that could be used day-to-day more useful

– Adapted FIRESCOPE model for structural fires

Differences Between the Systems

• Suitability to incidents of different scale, scope and duration

• Utilization of hierarchical levels and organizational structures

• Terminology

Examples of Adaptations

• National Interagency Incident Management System (NIIMS)

• NFPA 1561, Standard on Fire Department Incident Management System

• Model Procedures Guide for Structural Firefighting

Shared Concepts and Principles

• Each version shares basic concepts and principles

• Examples include– Hierarchical modular organization– Span of control– Establishment and transfer of command– Chain of command and unity of command– Accountability– Information management

Differences

• Terminology

• Organizational structuring mechanisms

• Positions (roles and titles)

Critical Issue

• Not the number of variations that exist

• But that jurisdictions and disciplines have felt it necessary to adapt and modify the ICS

• In fact, variations to this day– Nonuse

– Partial use

–Modifications

– Adaptations

Variations

• Implications for response efforts?

• What may contribute to the tendency of jurisdictions to change the system?

• These questions will be discussed throughout this session.

Exercise

• Form groups of 2-4 people

• Brainstorm a list of potential positive and negative attributes of the ICS

• You will have 10 minutes

• When finished write your group’s list on the blackboard/whiteboard

Potentially Positive Attributes

• Flexible• Widely applicable• Designed to standardize• Can be used day-to-day• All levels of government

and all disciplines• Based on proven

management characteristics

• Enjoys wide support

• Use is required• Use can decrease

– Perception of chaos and confusion

– Communication problems– Leadership issues– Duplication of effort– Unnecessary response-

related expenditures

• Use can increase safety of responders

Potentially Negative Attributes

• Based on assumptions

• Characteristics of emergencies and disasters

• Everyone has to use the system

• Everyone has to be trained

• Positions are specialized

• Everyone has to practice

• Everyone has recognize incident commander as legitimate

• On-scene management

• Volunteers and groups will emerge

• Temporary Use

• ICS is mandates

• Buy-in and commitment are necessary

Exercise

• Perceptions vary– Levels of government– Person-to-person– Organization-to-organization

• Questions to consider:–Why did you choose to list attributes as positive or

negative?– Are there any attributes that do not belong? If so,

why?

+ Flexibility and Scalability +

• Certain functions must be addressed in every incident

• System can be adapted based on nature of incident, stage of incident, and available resources

• Quickly scaled up or down

• Facilitated by as little as one or many

+ Applicability +

• Characteristics of incident should not affect the use of the ICS

• Has been used successfully to manage diverse incidents

+ Standardization +

• Should be used in the same way

• Allows predictable and patterned coordination and communication

+ Used Day-to-Day +

• Plan events

• Structure administrative activities

• Response to routine emergencies

• Coordinate response to disasters

• Day-to-day use encourages smooth transition into and scaling up of the ICS

+ All Levels of Government and Disciplines +

• Designed to let all entities merge into common structure

• Work together efficiently• Despite, different–Missions– Priorities– Responsibilities– Terminology– Cultures

+ Proven Management Characteristics +

• Practitioner developed

• Based on “best practices” and “lessons learned”

• Continues to evolve

+ Wide Support +

• Fire discipline has used for decades

• Other organizations adopted prior to the mandate of the ICS through NIMS

• Examples include– United States Coast Guard

– Occupational Health and Safety Administration

– Environmental Protection Agency

–Military and some businesses

+ ICS is Required+

• Condition for funding

• Should ensure compliance

+ Perception of Chaos and Confusion +

• Common issue—perceptions of chaos – Link with lack of organization

• The ICS can reduce when effectively implemented

+ Communication Problems +

• Utilize common terminology, incident action planning, ICS forms, and other tools

• Tools designed to – Facilitate flow of information and

–Minimize communication problems

+ Leadership Issues +

• Common issue—perceived lack of command and control

• The ICS provides processes for– Designation of incident commander

– Transferring command

– Use of unified command

+ Duplication of Effort +

• Common issue—more than one organization attempts to meet the same need

• Leads to unnecessary response-related expenditures

• Use of the ICS should eliminate

+ Increase Safety +

• Priority placed on safety in many ways

• Examples include– Designation of safety officer

– Incident action planning process

– Resource management

– Span of control

- Assumptions -

• Chaotic situations that must be managed through command and control

• System works

• It works for everyone

• Everyone will want to use it

• Response will be efficient if used

• Little research

• Implications if any assumptions are not true?

- Incident Characteristics -

• Prior research on disasters

• Qualitative and quantitative differences

• How might qualitative and quantitative differences impact the ability to implement the ICS?

- Everyone Has to Use -

• Relies on consistent use–Within organizations

– Across organizations

• Creates opportunities for the system not to perform

- Training -

• Depends on knowledge

• Knowledge depends on training– Accessible and available

• Additional position-specific training– More than one person in preparation for large-scale incidents

• Ongoing training due to turnover

• Jurisdictions– Commit personnel and funding

– Easier for some than others

• What might happen if jurisdictions do not get enough training?

- Practice -

• Depends on practice (i.e. experience) using system

• Get practice– Exercises

– Actual incident management

– Use on a daily basis

• What happens if organizations do not have enough practice?

- Incident Commander -

• Incident commander – Must be perceived to be legitimate

– All must work under the incident commander

• Clear criteria, but– May not follow the criteria

– And/or may not agree on how command and control should be handled

• What happens if they do not work within the structure?

- On-scene Management -

• ICS used for field operations

• MACs can use what they feel best-suited

• Implications for response if similar systems are not used in each?

- Volunteers and Emergent Groups -

• Volunteers and emergent groups– Research has shown common, necessary, and

helpful

• Not always positively perceived

• Implications of volunteers and emergent groups for the ICS?

- Temporary Use -

• Many organizations do not use the ICS on a daily basis

• Reasons why they do not include– Organization’s mission, priorities, leadership, and

culture

– Complexity may be off-putting

• Potential issues for traditional first responders too

• Implications if not used on a daily basis?

- ICS Mandate -

• Both positive and negative attribute

• Have to be compliant for certain funding– No obligation if they do not seek funding

• Implications if jurisdictions opt out?

- Buy-in -

• Resentment of federal mandates

• Training and practice not enough

• Implications if jurisdictions do not buy-in to the system?

Exercise

• Continue to work in same groups.

• Review and analyze one of four Moynihan (2006) case studies

• Identify the factors that encouraged or limited the implementation of the ICS in the case study.

• You have 20 minutes to conduct your analysis and prepare a list.

1993 Laguna and 2003 Cedar Fires

Encouraged

• Relationships and trust in place prior to incident

Limited• There were not enough

resources

• Incident’s scope rapidly expanded

• There were jurisdictional disagreements

• Individuals worked outside the ICS/chain of command

• Responders did not have sufficient training and experience

1995 Oklahoma City Bombing

Encouraged• Limited in scope

• Limited number of tasks

• Victims had limited variety of needs

• Agreement about who should be in charge

• There were enough resources

• Well-practiced and trained

• Preexisting relationships

Limited

• Resources converged

• Volunteers emerged

2001 Attack on the Pentagon

Only Encouraging Factors

• Limited geographic scope

• Small number of victims

• Incident site easily accessible

• There were enough resources

• The types of tasks generated by incident were familiar

• Incident command established without debate

• System was used flexibly

• Responders had training and experience

• Preexisting relationships and trust

Hurricane Katrina

Only Limiting Factors

• Geographic scope widespread

• Large number of tasks

• Lack of resources

• Communications systems and facilities unusable

• Many individuals and organizations involved and worked outside the ICs

• Neither incident command or unified command were established

• Responding organizations were themselves overwhelmed

• Lack of knowledge and training

• Lack of accountability

• Lack of preexisting relationships

Patterns?

Conditions Encouraging Use

• Limited number of tasks

• Geographically limited incidents

• Limited time pressure

• A manageable number of organizations involved in the response

• Responders have experience with the ICS model

• High capacity and adequate resources

• Preexisting relationships

Moynihan’s Conclusion

• Responders cannot control nature of crisis faced

• Implications:– Issues the system itself

cannot correct

– Nature of the incident

– Potentially allows explanation and prediction

Moynihan (2008)

• The success of the ICS is contingent

• Limited:– Nature of crisis

– Lack of experience

• Encouraged:– Use of SOPs

– Interagency trust

– Incidents long duration and limited scope

Buck et al. (2006)

• Preconditions:– Familiar tasks

– Preexisting relationships and trust

– Incident characteristics

• Conclude– System not flawed, rather faulty implementation

– Doubtful will be used “by all actors and in all disaster contexts”

– Not a universal system

Perry (2006)

• Preconditions:– Familiar tasks

– Training

– Enough resources

– Effective resource management

Wenger et al. (1990)

• Problem with system itself

• Findings:– The ICS modified and adapted

– Does not deal well with small scale disasters

– Issues with command

– Too “fire-centric”

– Did not integrate organizations into system well

– Depends on significant practice

– Complex nature of disasters not conducive to standardization

EFO Papers

• Supportive of the ICS and its use as a standard

• But many similar issues to those in academic work– Working with other jurisdictions and/or

agencies/organizations

– Resource issues

– How departments (or other organizations) used the system

– Appropriateness for volunteer and small fire departments

– Command and the ICS

– Command post and emergency operation center interface

EFO Papers Cont.

• Conditions:– Buy-in

– Training

– Regional perspective

– Funding and resources

– Critical role of practice

– Daily use

Implications from Literature

Factors within control

• Training

• Education

• Practice

• Resource management

• Generating buy-in and commitment

Factors beyond control

• Availability of resources (e.g. funding)

• Incident characteristics

• Victims’ needs

• Number and kind of tasks

• Whether or not other organizations involved have trained, practiced, and are committed

Implications Cont.

• Successful implementation may be dependent on preconditions

• ICS not a “cure-all”

• But knowledge of limitations and obstacles can help

Exercise

• Take 5 minutes to individually consider how the information and discussion from this session might impact you in your– First job where ICS training and implementation is

required

– As a professional in the field of emergency management

– As an emergency management student

First Job

• Manage expectations

• Manage personal performance

• Recognize where obstacles may exist and work with other stakeholders to overcome those obstacles

• Understand there may be factors beyond control

Professional

• Better understanding of what may have impacted the performance of the system in particular incidents

• Understand that some issues can be controlled and others cannot

• System will be refined over time

• When change required ensure preconditions met and/or advocate for the resources necessary to ensure they are met

Students

• Understand the contributions that empirical research and testing can and needs to make

• Connect the disaster literature to the ICS

• Utilize the way we have analyzed the ICS and apply this type of analysis to other emergency management issues