No matter what life endeavor, outcomes depend on effort. Hard work results in many invaluable benefits, and concentrated preparation yields great dividends. The fire service in particular goes to great lengths to be ready to change the outcomes of bad situations. Whether it’s conducting preventive maintenance, participating in training, or ensuring equipment is at the ready, many preincident actions contribute to an effective response.
Many variables influence incident operations and responder life safety. Certain aspects, such as those listed above, are within the fire department’s control. However, when not addressed, not enforced, or inadvertently omitted, they can influence incident outcomes, sometimes tragically. All members of the organization must embrace and concentrate on preparation measures, regardless of how seemingly simple or redundant they may seem.
Other variables are outside the fire department’s control or depend on other people, systems, and conditions: fire discovery and department notification, structural integrity compromises, and occupant actions. The fire department can control many preincident preparation tasks, carrying out each correctly, consistently, and comprehensively.
Although some preparation tasks are not very stimulating or exciting, they all contribute to the organization’s overall mission and influence responder safety. One such task that is not commonly concentrated on is gathering site-specific information, which has many correlating references, such as inspections, preincident surveys, and preplans. Regardless of what your organization calls it, the overarching goal is to improve the organization’s knowledge of what lies in wait. Each item listed above falls into the intelligence-gathering (IG) process.
Traveling among organizations to study their preincident preparedness, I find many common inconsistencies regardless of the organization’s disposition, career and volunteer. In a volunteer department, IG or lack thereof is blamed on the limited time of its volunteers. A career organization, however, is perceived to have adequate time and personnel resources to perform IG and process the data. Often, however, members consider intelligence gathering burdensome and meet it with hesitation, resistance, or excuses for not initiating the process. They perceive it as a routine activity, not as an opportunity for personnel to learn, prepare, and improve. In some cases, participants in inspection, prefire survey, or preplanning activities just go through the motions. They may believe that time spent on IG is often wasted and would be better spent on practicing rapid intervention tactics, honing vehicle extrication skills, or performing another practical evolution.
IG, however, is a practical evolution that allows participants to learn what they protect, prepare for what may harm them, and identify equipment or training deficiencies. All ranks should be proficient in this skill and competency. Not aggressively gathering intelligence puts the fire department at a significant disadvantage. Without such a program, the only chance the fire department will get to see the inside of a building is during an emergency, which is the most ineffective way to identify and appreciate the hazards present.
IG is more of an art than a science. Infinite circumstances and site-specific intricacies require adapting IG approaches and techniques. Obstacles such as complex facilities, hazardous processes, and individual facility personnel aptitudes can reduce IG efficiency and effectiveness. Often, a fire department has a one-size-fits-all intelligence-gathering program that may be inefficient, depending on whether the district is volunteer or career and the collection media and processes it has in place.
This article does not comprehensively outline developing an intelligence program. Rather, it reveals common inconsistencies and conflicting IG actions fire departments often take. Although all of the points outlined below may not apply to your organization, the basis and influence are consistent among most fire departments.
Before you begin gathering site-specific information, there are many preparations. You don’t fight a fire before first ensuring certain mechanisms are in place and ready; the same applies to IG.
STARTING THE PROCESS
Fire departments may initiate IG in diverse ways that vary dramatically according to the department’s disposition. In many career settings, on-duty crews use a standard form to note facility data during inspections or preplanning tours. Large departments may also assign fixed-facility data collection to inspectors or to the fire marshal’s division.
In some volunteer locales, because daytime personnel are unavailable, the process is often less consistent. Frequently, the method involves distributing data collection forms to facilities, and facility management is expected to complete and return them. This approach is often haphazard because of variable facility support. Also, IG efforts are typically inconsistent because of the turnover in the volunteer ranks.
Both situations have extremes. Some volunteer IG programs I have seen far exceed efforts initiated in career departments. Although there can be defined distinctions between career and volunteer processes, there are common IG attributes.
DATA COLLECTION MEDIUM
One of the first aspects to have in place, regardless of department disposition, is the medium through which you will collect data. To record site-specific information, you can adapt a template such as the preincident planning form offered in National Fire Protection Association 1620, Standard on Pre-Incident Planning (2010 edition). This multipage form captures criteria such as construction, hazards, and water supply. To organize fixed-facility information, you can use other forms, such as the Quick Action Preplan (QAP) suggested in many National Fire Academy training programs. Additionally, some fire departments have customized forms designed to reflect their IG goals. I have come across extremes in customized forms (both hard-copy and electronic). Some provide for intricate specificity; others are vague and in some cases do not capture some important data.
INTELLIGENCE GATHERING
One way to obtain facility information is to distribute a form for facility management to complete and return. This practice presents numerous considerations. Avoid distributing boilerplate forms such as the NFPA 1620 form or a QAP, which may be too complex for facility personnel to understand. The less they understand, the less likely they will be inclined to complete the form. Facility personnel typically are not familiar with fire service terminology, which may confuse or frustrate them and prohibit them from providing even basic information.
If relying on facility personnel to complete a data form, keep it simple—no more than one or two pages to note general operational information and basic infrastructure data. Because of the varied aptitudes of the facility personnel you may encounter, simplicity is key. A facility with a long-tenured maintenance or operations manager will be more likely to provide detailed information, whereas one with high personnel turnover will typically lack intricate site familiarity.
However, you need not customize a separate data form for each site. Rather, the key is to understand the audience. Ask for general information instead of detailed specifications that may confuse facility personnel. For example, if requesting the details of the sprinkler system, perhaps you should only ask if one is in place. Facility personnel may not recognize the difference between a wet and a dry sprinkler system or know what a fire department connection is. You can determine other intricate data later during a physical site visit.
INITIAL CONTACT
Before haphazardly mailing a survey form, first contact the facility, explain the fire department’s intention, and find out the name of the facility representative responsible for assisting in the process. Address correspondence directly to the facility contact to avoid misdistribution at the site, and include a date by which you would like the information returned. If you don’t set a date, the facility representative may put off working on the project and inadvertently lose or forget it. A reasonable return date will provide ample time for the contact to complete the form. Shortly after sending the correspondence, follow up with a phone call to confirm that it was received and to answer any questions the facility contact may have. This will show the facility representative the fire department’s genuine interest in protecting its facility.
DATA REVIEW
When a data form or questionnaire is returned, analyze it promptly. Too often, the information is filed, placed in a ring binder, or retyped verbatim into electronic media without study or review among department personnel. This practice is not effective or efficient. Expecting personnel to mitigate potential emergencies without providing opportunities to learn about potential hazards compromises their safety.
PREPARATION
One preparedness facet is research. Research specific industries in your locale to determine the processes they employ and associated hazards. You can tap into many resources, especially online, to explore systems, processes, and products. A facility that uses, stores, or manufactures hazardous materials should encourage the study of relevant material safety data sheets (MSDSs), which will reveal physical and chemical properties and how they may influence emergency operations.
Understanding special processes and hazards will facilitate protocol development. You may need to design facility-specific standard operating procedures to eliminate fire department actions that could escalate an incident or expose responders to danger. To enhance preparation, research the facility, the processes, and the products involved before making a site visit. The site visit is your first exposure to facility operations. Previsit research fosters educated inquiries during a tour. Without prior research, reviewing site operations and processes can be overwhelming, especially at a large or complex facility. If facility personnel realize that you have done your homework, they may be more inclined to provide more detail than if you display a “bobblehead” demeanor.
SITE VISITS
Intelligence requires physically touring the facility. No matter how comprehensively the facility has completed the data forms, there is no substitute for first-hand site reviews. Prearrange tours after you have studied the returned information. Visiting after studying returned data provides you with the opportunity to corroborate data, identify the need for more specific information, and determine other conditions that will influence incident operations. After coordinating tour arrangements, be punctual.
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Not all facility managers are eager to cooperate with the fire department. You will encounter difficult people. Some will be reluctant to provide information or allow fire department personnel to conduct a site visit. Commonly, this may be because of past bad experiences with the fire department or concern for information security. Other stresses may include increased workloads, limited staff, and the “we have insurance” mentality. Certain business conflicts, such as inventory schedules and other “busy times of the year,” may also affect cooperation. Regardless of the reason, fire department personnel must always be calm, courteous, and patient.
A successful incident outcome requires careful preparation. Common preparedness elements include providing proper personal protective equipment, enhancing training competencies, and ensuring equipment readiness. Another factor is situational awareness of what your department protects, fostered by IG. This requires concentrated efforts equal to those applied to equipment and training readiness.
IG is a meticulous process comprised of many facets beyond the scope of this article; it’s not a “just go out and do it” process. It is methodical and conditioned by the needs of the district protected; the audience; and fire department personnel who will collect, analyze, and study the information. All preparation facets require careful attention and consistency as well as training. Intelligence gathering is no different. Training or guidance in intelligence gathering is limited, which is a testament to the art that it is.
Fire Engineering Archives
