Sometimes Technology Is Not the Answer

BY CHRISTOPHER B. CARVER

A disturbing trend has emerged as many American cities have consolidated their dispatching and communications functions and invested in new technologies. Namely, the primary understanding of the role of communications in the fire service is being diminished and, in some cities, lost. Several key factors are involved: persons not knowledgeable about fire department needs making decisions about fire department communications systems; new technology that doesn’t put the customer (the fire department) first; and fire department leadership that does not stand up for the needs of the department, firefighters, and dispatchers.

Recent articles on this topic reveal the large amount of money being invested in new dispatching centers and new communications technology in part because of new Federal Communications Commission regulations and national interest in interoperability reaching a fevered pitch. The question is, Who is making sure that these new systems are a good fit for the people who depend on them for their safety and that valuable fire service dispatching skills are maintained and supported?

For example, departments continue to use digital radio systems for fireground communications despite unresolved questions about their effectiveness. As detailed in Radio Silence FDNY: The Betrayal of New York’s Bravest, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) placed digital radios into service and quickly recalled them in 2001 after discovering problems with their use in fireground environments.1Subsequent tests by the Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department2and by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration3indicated similar problems when the radios were tested in fireground situations.

LEADERSHIP LACKING

If multiple fire departments have reported these problems, then why would a vendor be less than enthusiastic about providing a better product? The answer is likely related to issues that apply to fire department equipment across the board from radios to tools to apparatus.

To develop better products, vendors need to invest in new technology, research, and development, which require money and thus impact the bottom line. Only when the fire service and public officials demand improved products will the vendors be motivated to invest the time and money required to meet the agency’s requirements. Otherwise, vendors will simply attempt to sell the same product to as many agencies as possible with as few changes as possible. This makes for smart business but risks delivering a product that does not meet the unique needs of a given agency—or, in the worst cases, assumes that everyone’s needs are the same.

Further, without constructive and informed input from those who will actually work with the new equipment and implement the new systems, public safety and community leaders will focus on the new technology and the appearance of progress instead of the actual functionality of the product purchased. After all, what politician wouldn’t want a “nice shiny new radio system” or a new consolidated communications center to demonstrate to the public his commitment to public safety—whether it works or not? More importantly, who in the fire department stands up beforehand to say the proposed new radio or dispatch system won’t work or presents unacceptable risks? Does the chief or the commissioner wilt, too afraid to tell the emperor that his new chariot has no fenders?

Therein lies another significant aspect of this problem—leadership. Whether it’s communications, apparatus, or a new firehouse, the most fundamental question often is not asked: Does this investment increase the effectiveness of the fire department or its firefighters? How many new apparatus have been purchased that didn’t meet the department’s needs but looked good on the exhibition hall floor? How many new tools months or even years later still sit in the back compartment new and unused, if they are still on the apparatus at all? If the new tool won’t be used or doesn’t improve firefighter effectiveness, it shouldn’t have been purchased.

Regarding radios, which is a more effective use of money: purchasing a costly digital radio system that may have serious problems on the fireground or purchasing an equally or more reliable but less expensive analog system? Does the answer change if a department has only two or three members on an engine company? How about for a department with a 100-year-old firehouse with sagging floors? The critical nature of these spending decisions is all the more important in today’s economy with fire departments’ tightening budgets and diminished resources. Every dollar must be allocated to its most important use—and to its most effective purpose.

Yes, we may be able to transmit in a digitally encrypted manner, and we might be able to have mobile data terminals that do everything but extinguish the fire. However, if the technology doesn’t work when it counts—or live up to its billing—when the first floor gives way and a member is buried under debris trying to get out, or when the “big one” hits and every agency on a trunked radio system is trying to communicate simultaneously on a system that has only 10 or 15 voice channels for hundreds of potential users, then we have done no one any favors. More importantly, we have spent millions of dollars to potentially degrade our capabilities and effectiveness instead of improve it.

DISPATCH CONSOLIDATION

Equally tragic is another trend in fire service communication—consolidating specialized fire service communications facilities into generalized public safety answering centers. This often occurs along with the creation of a single agency devoted to this function, but it is removed from the fire department’s organizational structure. As a result, the understanding of fire service communications in regard to dispatching and communication is lost.

The underlying assumption is that all dispatching requires the same skills, so the same person can do it all. After all, it’s just a phone, radios, and a computer, right? Combined with new technology, this loss of the “art” of fire service dispatching seriously impacts the service provided in these communities. Persons who don’t understand fire department operations or organization make decisions not just about day-to-day responses but also about the technology these agencies will use. When increasing workloads (fires, alarms, emergencies, medical calls) and decreasing availability of resources are also factored in, the effects on response time and fire coverage in a community could be devastating.

Properly trained, fire department-knowledgeable dispatchers do more than just answer the phones. When empowered to do so, and given the right tools and equipment, they ensure that limited resources are allocated effectively—serving more as resource managers than the overpriced answering service some see them to be.

Money is certainly not the answer to this developing problem; it takes leadership and better solutions. It begins with vendors understanding that they need to design solutions based on the customer’s input and expertise and not just steer public safety agencies toward systems or facilities that may not be operationally or technically effective.

It continues with fire service leadership and elected officials who must stop buying the newest shiny gizmo or following the latest fad. They must better educate themselves about their choices and be more dedicated to the priorities of every fire service agency—providing better service to the public and reliable communications for every firefighter.

Further, they need to honestly assess the trends in fire service communications and dispatching, adopt and maintain the best practices, and not lose effectiveness in the quest for the latest and the greatest, regardless of the vendor’s sales pitch or the opinions of the uninformed.

Endnotes

1. Joyce, John, and Bill Bowen. Radio Silence, FDNY: The Betrayal of New York’s Bravest. Chesapeake Books, 2004.

2. Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department, Radio Communications for Emergency Responders in Large Public Buildings: Comparing Analog and Digital Modulation, www.ci.phoenix.az.us/FIRE/radioreport.pdf.

3. Atkinson, David J. and Andrew Catellier. Intelligibility of Selected Radio Systems in the Presence of Fireground Noise: Test Plan and Results. National Telecommunications and Information Administration Report TR-08-453, June 2008, www.its.bldrdoc.gov/pub/ntia-rpt/08-453/.

CHRISTOPHER B. CARVER is a 15-year veteran of the fire service and a borough supervising dispatcher and training coordinator with the Fire Department of New York. He is an adjunct professor at John Jay College in New York City and a writer and consultant on fire service communications issues.