BY STEVEN M. DE LISI
Individuals who staff fire and EMS organizations are dedicated and possess the physical and moral strength that enable them to make their communities safer by using equipment that was unimaginable to earlier generations. But, abundant technological innovation, individual strength, and personal dedication are not enough. Effective management of resources is also needed for a successful organization. How efficient is resource management in your organization? How many of these management scenarios have occurred in your department?
- A task is assigned to an engine company during an emergency incident, and things don’t go well. During the post-incident review, a supervisor says, “They just should have known how to do that.” Yet, no one can recall any specific policies, procedures, or training that would have prepared personnel to meet the supervisor’s expectations.
- A member is injured while using equipment for which he was trained, but the training and the equipment were later determined to be insufficient to meet applicable federal and state standards. Litigation is pending.
- Station members express their dissatisfaction with a new piece of equipment purchased for their unit, stating that, “Nobody ever asks our opinion when they buy this stuff; we just get stuck using it.” Personnel responsible for maintaining the vehicles have the same concern regarding the purchase of apparatus.
- Some equipment was recently purchased from a vendor without obtaining bids, even though a bid process was required. A competing vendor has now threatened to file a lawsuit against the department.
- Personnel are sent to a training program to learn a new procedure, but the equipment used during training is different from that assigned to their unit.
- A new piece of equipment is assigned to a station, but there is very little training on its use, care, and maintenance. It’s broken within days; everybody blames someone else.
- Conversations with members of different work shifts regarding a particular operational issue in the department reveal that each group has its own interpretation of the issue-and each group believes it is correct.
Tackling issues such as these requires effective management skills, including the ability to set goals and objectives, assign tasks to personnel, coordinate the purchase of equipment, and determine minimum training requirements. However, remember that even though it is important to possess effective management skills, it is equally as important to be able to effectively manage these skills in a logical sequence.
Training department members without giving them an understanding of how the training and equipment assigned to them relate to their specific roles and responsibilities can set the stage for unrealistic expectations. Likewise, making decisions on issues such as equipment purchases, roles and responsibilities, task assignments, and department training programs without considering those likely to be affected may be a recipe for political or financial disaster. And, those who assume that others will just naturally understand how to make things work and achieve a specific outcome may be surprised at what really happens!
THE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT SEQUENCE
The Effective Management Sequence is an eight-step, progressive, decision-making process. It is based on the premise that good results are derived from decisions based not only on credible research, sound judgment, and experience but also on the order in which these decisions are reached and how well the individuals are involved in the process. Furthermore, the Effective Management Sequence stresses the critical interrelationships between each step.
Any decision that attempts to put the cart before the horse, even one made in good faith, has the potential for serious political, legal, and financial challenges, not to mention that most people in your department will do nothing but complain about it. Depending on the amount of time and money invested in the decision, the change can be painful not only for the political, legal, and financial reasons mentioned but for individual egos as well.
The effective management sequence consists of the following:
•Goals. A goal can be defined as a broad statement of intent. The basis for the goal could be a desire to provide a new or enhanced level of service delivery; a response to an accident, injury, or fatality; or the result of recent legislative action that mandates a change in operating procedures.
Goals can range from introducing a new nozzle to fire companies to preparing suppression personnel for response to terrorist incidents to integrating EMS functions into a fire department to building a new fire station. By having a goal, you provide the necessary focal point for the remaining components of the sequence. Furthermore, with a goal in mind, you’re better prepared to respond to someone who might ask at the beginning of your first meeting, “Why are we here?”
•Stakeholders. Stakeholders are those individuals or groups likely to have an interest in or to be impacted by decisions related to achieving the goal. They may include a wide range of participants-those assigned to physically use a piece of equipment; those responsible for maintaining equipment; purchasing agents; and, ultimately, other agencies and individuals affected by the success or failure of your operation. A stakeholder may be one individual, a group, or a department.
By knowing who the stakeholders are during the early stages of the Effective Management Sequence, you’re able to take advantage of the expertise and experience of those who may have already been involved in a similar process, thereby enabling you to learn from their experience. This experience can include a knowledge of the politics that may be involved or other potential problems likely to be encountered along the way. Also, by involving other stakeholders in the process, you increase the likelihood that the parties involved will buy into the decisions made.
It may take some brainstorming to identify stakeholders, and you may overlook someone initially. It is generally a good idea to ask the original group of stakeholders early in the process if they think anyone else should be involved.
The stakeholders chosen to participate should be those individuals or groups that may reasonably expect to be affected by the decisions. Don’t choose the committee based on numbers. Even though it may be argued that too many people can complicate the decision-making process, if you exclude individuals likely to be affected by the decisions, you will only delay the inevitable-you will have to deal with them sooner or later, and sooner is usually better.
Some may perceive relying on others for help by involving stakeholders in the decision-making process as a sign of weakness or a loss of control. In these cases, individual egos should be curbed for the benefit of others in the organization.
•Roles and responsibilities. Identifying each stakeholder’s roles and responsibilities helps to confirm the reason the stakeholder was chosen in the first place and what his functions would likely be in achieving the goal. Keep in mind that in some situations, stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities may already have been defined elsewhere, such as in an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) or legislation.
Statements of roles and responsibilities should be general in nature, since you are only attempting to determine why a particular stakeholder is important to the process. For example, one role for a fire department during a hazardous-materials emergency might be to decontaminate victims, whereas the role of an EMS agency during a similar incident might be defined as providing triage and prehospital care to decontaminated patients.
•Task assignments. To meet stated goals, assign specific task(s) (or jobs) to each stakeholder. Task assignments should be within the scope of the stakeholder’s roles and responsibilities. By recognizing these roles and responsibilities earlier, you minimize the possibility of asking individuals to attempt something they would never likely do in the real world or, worse, engage in activities for which they are not legally authorized. Furthermore, analyzing the tasks already assigned to some stakeholders may minimize the need to assign this task to others. If someone is already performing a certain job well, any duplication of effort may not be cost-effective.
When developing task assignments, it is not simply a matter of deciding who will do what. Other factors must also be seriously considered. They include equipment and training, which allow stakeholders to accomplish their tasks, and requirements promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
The importance of these types of documents cannot be overstated, since failing to assign tasks in a manner compliant with established rules and regulations might result in criminal charges. Ignoring recommendations contained in consensus standards from nonregulatory organizations may pose the threat of civil liability. In addition, certain standards from nonregulatory organizations may have been adopted as law in your state or locality, thereby increasing the likelihood of legal complications.
As an example, it’s easy to say a stakeholder’s task will require entry into an environment that contains a potentially deadly atmosphere and that self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) would appear to be the right choice of equipment to ensure the stakeholder’s safety, but the use of SCBA might very well require compliance with the 29 CFR 1910.134 Respiratory Protection standard. Failure to recognize this issue early on may present serious legal challenges later, not to mention the potential for additional costs and-most important of all-jeopardizing the safety of personnel.
Consult documents related to your goals published by OSHA (or comparable organizations where federal OSHA may not have jurisdiction) and organizations such as the NFPA for guidance. Also, remember that publications such as these originate not only on the national scene but at state and local levels as well. It is commonly said that ignorance is no defense; therefore, emergency service personnel should be knowledgeable in these matters.
•Equipment. The benefits of first identifying stakeholders along with their roles and responsibilities become increasingly apparent when equipment issues arise. These items are often purchased, used, maintained, and trained with by different stakeholders, and if all these folks aren’t talking and somewhere close to agreement (or perhaps they’re not even involved in the decision-making process at all), the blame game is just beginning when things go wrong.
Stakeholder input on equipment is vital. While some purchases may seem like a bargain early on, the use of equipment that is ill prepared to meet the demands of stakeholder tasks is potentially frustrating and dangerous. In addition, purchases made without consultation from a finance department stakeholder may circumvent established procurement procedures or ethics (whether intentional or otherwise) and, as such, present serious legal problems. And remember that while some emergency service personnel attempt to live by the motto “It’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission,” procurement irregularities can lead some to seek early retirement.
When purchasing equipment, price is only part of the equation. Do the stakeholders really need a particular piece of equipment? If so, does it allow them to perform their tasks safely? Is it compatible with other equipment already in use? Also consider how maintenance is performed. For hand tools, can repairs be done in the field, or does everything that breaks need to be sent back to the factory? If it goes out for repair, what is the anticipated turn-around time and cost for parts and labor, and is there replacement equipment available in the interim? If the item you’re buying comes with a great price, is it only because it’s on the verge of becoming extinct next month or perhaps, unbeknown to you, others have had serious problems with similar equipment? Does the purchase price include training by an authorized representative who is knowledgeable and experienced with the item? Will the training be available for personnel on all shifts? Answers to questions such as these help ensure that equipment will meet the needs of stakeholders in a manner that is safe and cost-effective.
•Guidelines. Probably one of the leading causes of equipment failure (which leads to stakeholders being unable to accomplish their task assignments) is a lack of written guidelines that include use, care, and maintenance instructions. Although a hallmark of the fire service has always been its members’ ability to make things work when others can’t, references to equipment that is “firefighter-proof” are sometimes well deserved. Written guidelines need not be documents that rival an encyclopedia but usually require only basic directions that spell out the roles and responsibilities for an affected stakeholder, summarize instructions provided by the manufacturer, and incorporate specific organizational requirements.
Simply providing a copy of the manufacturer’s instructions to stakeholders may not be an effective means of satisfying use, care, and maintenance concerns. These types of instructions are not always suitable for everyday use, since they may contain small print (or be printed in four languages), be difficult to use when attempting to locate specific items of interest, and be almost impossible to copy if the document is bound. But most important of all, the manufacturer did not write the instructions with your organization in mind!
As examples, the manufacturer may suggest the use of a particular type of hydraulic fluid for a piece of equipment, but where exactly do you find this item in your department? And what are the minimum qualifications for those authorized to operate the equipment, and under what circumstances are they authorized to do so? The manufacturer may suggest periodic inspections and maintenance, but how are they to be performed in your organization? How are inspection records to be maintained, and by whom? Remember that from a legal perspective, if something isn’t written down (including maintenance records), it probably didn’t happen. Attempting to confront a manufacturer for equipment failure without maintenance and inspection records may be an uphill battle.
Issues such as these that are specific to your department deserve to be addressed in writing. The process of developing guidelines may be simplified by using quick reference cards and flowcharts that provide a summarized version of the manufacturer’s instructions while incorporating your organization’s specific needs.
The quick reference cards and flowcharts should not be major rewrites of the manufacturer’s documents, for obvious reasons. However, since there may be an occasional need for details beyond that provided within an abbreviated format, quick reference cards and flowcharts should also include page numbers or sections in the manufacturer’s instructions where additional information can be found.
Various computer software programs can be easily adapted to create these types of documents, and they can be printed on heavy stock paper that can be laminated for durability. When preparing these items, include an “effective date” or “revision date” to ensure that personnel are always working with the most recent version.
When writing guidelines, avoid terms such as “must,” “shall,” or “will” (all of which leave little “wiggle room” for stakeholders) unless there is a need for that level of specificity. Using whenever possible terms such as “should” or “may” provide a level of direction while still allowing stakeholders to use their judgment under variable conditions that may be encountered during emergency situations.
Regardless of the perceived simplicity involving the use, care, and maintenance of equipment, if the outcome really matters, then you should establish a written guideline. Otherwise, statements such as “they should have known better” (often made soon after equipment failures that result in damage or personal injury) may offer little defense to those in charge. And remember that although you don’t want to insult anyone’s intelligence by appearing to have everything in writing, we all know how much trouble you can get into when you assume anything.
•Training. Training can be defined as an observable change in behavior and is the component of the Effective Management Sequence that seeks to ensure that stakeholders understand their roles and responsibilities; task assignments; and the use, care, and maintenance requirements of any equipment that may be available to them. Manufacturer’s instructions (if equipment is used) along with written guidelines, such as quick reference cards or flowcharts, should be presented during training. These written guidelines and instructions are best used as training tools instead of as a substitute for training and thorough familiarity with equipment and task assignments. Handing over a piece of equipment, whether it’s a small tool or a $500,000 apparatus, along with just the owner’s manual may be a recipe for disaster.
When developing a training program, learning objectives help spell out just what the expected change in behavior should be. These objectives can be designed using the easy-to-remember acronym of S-C-B-A:
S-Student: Who are the stakeholders?
C-Condition: Under what conditions? Using what specific type of equipment?
B-Behavior: What are their roles, responsibilities, and task assignments?
A-Achievement: What are the minimum performance expectations?
It should be evident that use of the Effective Management Sequence already provides answers to the first three questions presented above. All that remains is to establish the level of achievement, the extent to which minimum performance expectations are met.
For example, your department may decide that there is a zero tolerance for error when identifying U.S. DOT hazard classes from placards displayed on transport vehicles. There may also be a minimum time established for donning SCBA or placing a ladder pipe in operation. Although most of these are in-house issues, researching the documents mentioned earlier, such as NFPA standards, may provide additional guidance when establishing a degree of performance expectations.
Determining the extent of training for individual and group stakeholders should be based on their roles and responsibilities. As an example, finance and maintenance personnel may be involved in the purchase of equipment, but their individual roles and responsibilities will dictate the extent to which they are trained in operating the equipment.
Whenever possible, the exact equipment (or something very similar) used in the field should be available during training. This may not seem like much when dealing with axes and hydrant wrenches, but tools ranging from nozzles to aerial apparatus have unique characteristics that are best addressed by training specific to the item.
Learning objectives may also be found in documents published by the NFPA, federal training agencies (such as the National Fire Academy), or similar organizations operated at a state level. However, regardless of the outside source, these learning objectives are at best “generic” and do not always capably address the roles and responsibilities, task assignments, equipment use, or written guide-lines specific to your needs.
If you choose to adopt a statewide or national-level training program (and there are a lot of good ones out there), review it first and then include information tailored to your department where necessary. Don’t reinvent the wheel, but don’t assume that stakeholders who complete a generic-style training program are fully prepared to fulfill their roles and responsibilities, manage their assigned tasks, and use equipment according to your department’s written guidelines unless an effort is made to present this information to them.
In situations where a state or federal agency provides training to a local department (often accomplished with an adjunct instructor), it may be helpful to allow the instructor to use your equipment during the class. The instructor must be thoroughly familiar with your equipment requirements. Other options include having a representative from your locality who can deal with certain in-house topics available during the class or providing additional training on these local-level issues at a later date.
•Evaluation. Overall, an evaluation should determine if you are achieving your goal. More specifically, it should examine the interrelationship between the other components of the decision-making process.
For example, have other stakeholders expressed an interest in participating in the process, or have some stakeholders questioned their involvement or perhaps their task assignments? Have you heard comments such as “Why are we doing this?” or “This isn’t my job”? Does the equipment you bought work as intended, or is it in the repair shop most of the time? Do the written guidelines for the equipment make sense, and do people use them? Or, do personnel make statements such as “What written guidelines?” And, are people still doing things the old way, not because of fire station traditions but simply because the old way was better-or, even worse, because they were not given an opportunity to give their input regarding the decisions and they are resentful of the change?
A major event or incident is often a driving force to evaluate operations, but evaluations should be ongoing. Depending on the level of activity, there may be ample real-world evidence of success or failure. For infrequent situations that carry a potential for high risk, periodic scheduled evaluations may be necessary. These periodic evaluations can take the form of exercises or refresher training. Remember, too, that, refresher training may be a legal requirement for some activities and the standards referenced earlier in the Effective Management Sequence can provide this valuable information.
There may also be a need for evaluation if a significant change occurs in any component of the original decision-making process. These changes may include new roles and responsibilities for stakeholders (possibly as a result of changes in agency directives or revised legislation), the availability of improved equipment, or updates in standards published by regulatory or nonregulatory agencies. The leaders of emergency service organizations must stay abreast of these changes, anticipate their impact, and be prepared to react.
STEVEN M. DE LISI has been a hazardous materials officer with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management Technological Hazards Division since 1997. His responsibilities include directing initial state response to hazardous materials emergencies in 16 counties and four cities located in metro Richmond and the surrounding region and working with local government and state agencies in developing hazardous materials emergency response programs. Previously, he had served for five years as a regional training manager for the Virginia Department of Fire Programs and was employed for 10 years with the Newport News (VA) Fire Department. He has an associate’s degree in police science and a bachelor’s degree in governmental ad-ministration and is pursuing a master’s degree in public safety leadership.
