National Incident Management Systems

1
National Incident Management Systems

• Session 6 Slide Deck

2
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

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
Differences Between the Systems

• Suitability to incidents of different scale,
  scope and duration
• Utilization of hierarchical levels and
  organizational structures
• Terminology

9
Examples of Adaptations

• National Interagency Incident Management System
  (NIIMS)
• NFPA 1561, Standard on Fire Department Incident
  Management System
• Model Procedures Guide for Structural Firefighting

10
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

11
Differences

• Terminology
• Organizational structuring mechanisms
• Positions (roles and titles)

12
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

13
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.

14
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 groups list on the
  blackboard/whiteboard

15
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

16
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

17
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?

18
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

19
Applicability

• Characteristics of incident should not affect the
  use of the ICS
• Has been used successfully to manage diverse
  incidents

20
Standardization

• Should be used in the same way
• Allows predictable and patterned coordination and
  communication

21
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

22
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

23
Proven Management Characteristics

• Practitioner developed
• Based on best practices and lessons learned
• Continues to evolve

24
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

25
ICS is Required

• Condition for funding
• Should ensure compliance

26
Perception of Chaos and Confusion

• Common issueperceptions of chaos
• Link with lack of organization
• The ICS can reduce when effectively implemented

27
Communication Problems

• Utilize common terminology, incident action
  planning, ICS forms, and other tools
• Tools designed to
• Facilitate flow of information and
• Minimize communication problems

28
Leadership Issues

• Common issueperceived lack of command and
  control
• The ICS provides processes for
• Designation of incident commander
• Transferring command
• Use of unified command

29
Duplication of Effort

• Common issuemore than one organization attempts
  to meet the same need
• Leads to unnecessary response-related
  expenditures
• Use of the ICS should eliminate

30
Increase Safety

• Priority placed on safety in many ways
• Examples include
• Designation of safety officer
• Incident action planning process
• Resource management
• Span of control

31
- 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?

32
- Incident Characteristics -

• Prior research on disasters
• Qualitative and quantitative differences
• How might qualitative and quantitative
  differences impact the ability to implement the
  ICS?

33
- Everyone Has to Use -

• Relies on consistent use
• Within organizations
• Across organizations
• Creates opportunities for the system not to
  perform

34
- 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?

35
- 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?

36
- 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?

37
- 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?

38
- 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?

39
- Temporary Use -

• Many organizations do not use the ICS on a daily
  basis
• Reasons why they do not include
• Organizations 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?

40
- 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?

41
- Buy-in -

• Resentment of federal mandates
• Training and practice not enough
• Implications if jurisdictions do not buy-in to
  the system?

42
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.

43
1993 Laguna and 2003 Cedar Fires

• Encouraged

• Limited

• Relationships and trust in place prior to incident

• There were not enough resources
• Incidents scope rapidly expanded
• There were jurisdictional disagreements
• Individuals worked outside the ICS/chain of
  command
• Responders did not have sufficient training and
  experience

44
1995 Oklahoma City Bombing

• Encouraged

• Limited

• 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

• Resources converged
• Volunteers emerged

45
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

46
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

47
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

48
Moynihans Conclusion

• Responders cannot control nature of crisis faced

• Implications
• Issues the system itself cannot correct
• Nature of the incident
• Potentially allows explanation and prediction

49
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

50
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

51
Perry (2006)

• Preconditions
• Familiar tasks
• Training
• Enough resources
• Effective resource management

52
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

53
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

54
EFO Papers Cont.

• Conditions
• Buy-in
• Training
• Regional perspective
• Funding and resources
• Critical role of practice
• Daily use

55
Implications from Literature

• Factors within control

• Factors beyond control

• Training
• Education
• Practice
• Resource management
• Generating buy-in and commitment

• 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

56
Implications Cont.

• Successful implementation may be dependent on
  preconditions
• ICS not a cure-all
• But knowledge of limitations and obstacles can
  help

57
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

58
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

59
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

60
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