TOOLS FOR MANAGING THE INCIDENT
INCIDENT ACTION PLANS
STEVE KREIS
This article is about arguably the most important tool the incident commander (IC) has in his toolbox–the Incident Action Plan (IAP). It is impossible to safely and effectively manage an incident without some type of plan. The IAP defines the firefighting tactics and strategies an incident commander will use to control an incident. According to Alan Brunacini, chief of the Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department, incident action planning is the fifth of the Eight Functions of Command.1 For years, successful ICs have developed IAPs in their heads or have scratched them out on the back of a tactical worksheet, usually in retrospect to actions or decisions already made (cart-before-the-horse planning). This informal approach presents the following shortcomings: a lack of a clear focus by all the players on the fireground, the inability of the IC to consistently pass on complete information to others who need it, the allocation of resources or deployment of units without a plan (which can lead to the units` operating in offensive positions during a defensive firefight), the IC`s reacting to fireground conditions instead of being proactive and assigning units according to a plan, and the loss of valuable knowledge/experience about the decision-making process for all involved.
Good ICs have been developing incident action plans for years. A significant difference between the successful and the unsuccessful attempts at running a safe and effective fire has been the preparation process used by the incident commander to develop an effective plan. All the benchmarks must be covered in a methodical manner; missing a single critical component can be catastrophic. Most of us have operated in an offensive position at a fire at which conditions clearly indicated that the operations should have been defensive–we were lucky enough to survive. The purpose of an IAP is to avoid such occurrences by providing incident commanders with a tool that will guide them through a methodical process for determining the tactics and strategy to be used at an incident.
WHAT IS AN IAP?
An IAP formalizes the incident action planning process. It must be simple to use, concise, flexible, and easy to understand. Most importantly, it must be effective. An IAP should include the following sections:
Size-up. At the time the plan is developed, what are the critical fireground factors facing the IC? What are the rescue, property, safety, and customer needs profiles?
Strategy. It is absolutely imperative that all the players understand whether this is an offensive or defensive firefight. The overall IAP must be based on the incident strategy; it can`t be the other way around (nonthinking action). Considering all the critical fireground factors, what outcome does the IC expect?
Tactics. Do we remove the fire from the victims or the victims from the fire? An IAP must focus clearly on the tactics needed to bring the situation under control. What about the exposures, for example?
Strategic/tactical assignments. What sectors (groups), branches (divisions), or sections are going to be employed to manage the incident, and what are the objectives of those assignments?
Evaluation process. What routine or method will be used to evaluate progress at specified intervals? Clearly, the plan components must be evaluated and revised to meet the ever-changing needs on the fireground.
WHEN TO USE AN IAP
An IAP should be developed whenever command is established, and it should be evaluated, reviewed, and refined throughout the incident. In some instances, a single IAP may be all that is necessary. In most other instances–based on the nature, length, and complexity of the incident–additional IAPs may be needed to match (and, hopefully, overpower) changing incident conditions. The plan should be reviewed and refined after each tactical objective is met–for example, the strategy of an incident may change dramatically after an “all-clear” is achieved.
IAPs must also be evaluated, reviewed, and refined at every transfer of command. Officers have the opportunity to enlist “new eyes.” A standard part of the command transfer process is a review of the IAP. An officer cannot accept command of an incident and inherit a plan with which he does not agree. The IAP must also be evaluated each time a member is added to the command team (in Phoenix, a command team consists of an incident commander, a support officer, and a senior advisor).
When the support officer and the senior advisor arrive, one of their first tasks should be to evaluate the IAP with the IC and to approve the plan or change it. This IAP review process must become a standard part of the command system and should be used to strengthen and define safety and operational effectiveness. The plan review must be done in a positive, supportive, and collaborative manner. ICs must be open to these reviews and respond to the reviewing officers` observations, suggestions, and changes.
IAPs should also be evaluated before and after any significant event occurs on the fireground. Since most of us are not clairvoyant, evaluating an IAP before a significant event may not always be possible, but an attempt should be made to review the plan wherever significant developments are predictable. Clearly, after any significant event (positive or negative), the IAP must be evaluated, reviewed, and refined. The command team`s continual evaluation of the IAP is the best way to ensure that the team is operating under the most current and effective IAP.
THE IAP PROVIDES A CLEAR FOCUS AND CONSISTENT COMMUNICATION
An IAP provides the IC with a clear focus of what is expected to happen before assigning units. It allows the IC to use a consistent model to formulate a plan, thus providing for standardized outcomes and increased firefighter safety. Incident outcomes and firefighter safety are severely jeopardized when ICs operate without an action plan. Operating without an IAP may be a form of “IC free enterprise.” It is absolutely critical that ICs share their focus with other players at an incident. An IAP also requires that an IC develop a plan before committing resources.
An IAP is an excellent communication tool. Not only can it be used to systematize communications with those directly involved in the firefight, but it can be used to communicate the plan to other members of the command team as they arrive at an incident. A well-designed IAP will enable an IC to consistently pass on critical information to those who need it most in a very concise, easy-to-understand format.
Using an IAP will help the IC to maintain a consistent course of action and to make uniform decisions based on the strategic plan. An IAP is not intended to restrict an IC from making changes. An IC must change the plan anytime conditions change or whenever the current course of action is incorrect or ineffective. Establishing a written IAP and periodically reviewing the plan will keep an IC from “drifting” away from the plan. Drifting often occurs at the most inappropriate times, quite frequently when an IC is simply reacting to requests from sector officers or others on the fireground and not putting those requests within the context of the IAP.
THE IAP AND RISK MANAGEMENT
The incident strategy must be based on a standard risk management profile. In Phoenix, we use three simple statements as our risk management profile:
We will risk our lives a lot to save savable lives.
We will risk our lives a little (within a structured safety plan) to protect savable property.
We will not risk our lives at all to save lives and property that are already lost.
A risk-management profile based on incident strategy must always be developed. As a very simplistic example, why would an IC deploy units using an offensive strategy on a structure that is fully involved? If a structure is truly fully involved, typically no one inside the structure will survive the fire (even standard bunker gear will not protect firefighters from fully involved conditions). And, after we have the fire under control and after we have left the scene, if the insurance company sends the wrecking crew to tear down what didn`t burn down, we didn`t save any property–thus, the purpose for a risk management profile. Offensive firefighting is very dangerous. In many situations, it is what we are paid to do–but only when there is somebody or something to save. Nobody (sane) expects us to risk our lives for lives and property that are already lost (especially our family members).
THE IAP AS A TRAINING TOOL
IAPs are excellent training tools. For years, the IC`s decision-making process has been to keep the plan in his head. Why do effective ICs consistently make good decisions? Dr. Gary Klein says, “Experts learn to perceive things that are invisible to novices, such as characteristics of a typical situation. They make high-quality decisions under extreme time pressure. When difficulties arise, experts find opportunities for improvising solutions.”2 In other words, seasoned ICs sense when problems will occur. For years, we have been telling ICs to “trust your gut.” If your gut is telling you something is wrong, something is probably wrong.
Hubert L. Dreyfus and Stuart E. Dreyfus, in their book Mind Over Machine: The Power of Human Intuitive Expertise in the Era of the Computer,3 state that “people who repeatedly confront a particular task move in stages from the rank of novice to expert. Rather than sifting through a vast stockpile of rules, facts, and wisdom, experts use their experience to recognize distinctive situations that, in turn, evoke helpful tactics and actions.” In other words, in the fire service today, expert ICs base decisions on IAPs that have worked for them in the past. Successful and unsuccessful IAPs are filed in the IC`s brain. Officers with the greatest amount of experience have the most “files” to call on when it`s time to make critical decisions.
A major part of IAP management involves developing an organizational “stockpile” of descriptions of actual applications of IAPs to “real” tactical situations. From these descriptions, we are able to develop an understanding of how standard operations work on standard conditions and don`t work on nonstandard conditions. This is a very practical process as applied over time (throughout the organization). Sometimes it`s pretty easy to evaluate what is going on and to develop an IAP to match that evaluation; everything works well. Other times, we may think we evaluated correctly but find that when we apply our IAP, the fire doesn`t go out. At that point, the IC must react to that outcome and go to IAP #2. As we stockpile those experiences, we improve our understanding of the patterns that occur between action and outcome. This is what experience is really about. It`s about doing the most effective plan first (do it right the first time) and then knowing how to set up IAP #2 when IAP #1 was off for whatever reason. This exercise is about creating a library of these actual experiences a student (all of us) can read, study, and reflect on. The information is in one place and should be in a standard format (a combination of written, video, pictures, and audio). The students then can “load” those experiences into their “mental files” and later dig them out and apply them when they encounter a similar situation.
 |
 |
 |
(1) The incident action plan (IAP) form is an excellent communication tool and is a consistent way to pass information to other command officers and the media. [Photos courtesy of the Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department.]
 |
(2) Incident commanders must develop an IAP before assigning units. Missing a single component can be catastrophic.
 |
(3) The IAP provides incident commanders with an excellent training tool for analyzing the decision-making process during postincident critiques.
 |
(4) IAPs should be evaluated, reviewed, and refined throughout the incident. The review must be done in a positive, supportive, and collaborative manner.
 |
Endnotes
1. Alan Brunacini`s Eight Functions of Command are the following:
Assume/Confirm/Position
Situation Evaluation
Communications
Deployment
Incident Action Plan
Organization
Review/Evaluate/Revise
Continue/Transfer/Terminate
2. In “Seeing Through Expert Eyes,” Bruce Bower, Science News 154, July 18, 1998, 44.
3. Dreyfus, Hubert L. and Stuart E. Dreyfus. Mind Over Machine: The Power of Human Intuitive Expertise in the Era of the Computer (Free Press, 1986).
STEVE KREIS is assistant chief of the Operations Division of the Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department, where he has served for 24 years. He has a bachelor`s degree in political science from Arizona State University and is currently completing course work for a master`s degree in public administration. He is an adjunct instructor in the fire service curriculum at Phoenix College and a member of the Fire Department Instructors Conference (FDIC) Education Committee, the International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA) Executive Board, and other professional and civic organizations.
