Overview of Performance Measurement Systems - Term Paper Example

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT Introduction Performance outcome remains an important variable for taking decisions on a system or guideline to use in undertaking fire and emergency tasks. For example, where one system produces better outcomes than the other in a fire and rescue duty, the need to adopt that system over the other is relevant. But to know the real outcome or performance of a system, it is important to have a performance measurement tool in place. This background forms the basis of this research where it is important to weigh two performance measurement tools which are the insurance services organization (ISO) grading system and the standards of coverage. The weighing will be done in terms of reviewing, comparing and evaluating the two systems to know which of them produces the best performance, effectiveness and efficiency in the execution of fire and emergency duties. The research is undertaken by the use of an evaluative research method, where the researcher seeks to review the two systems by setting very standardized modalities of assessment. The modalities basically include the weaknesses and strengths of the two systems. The research is conducted in a qualitative manner, where conclusions will b drawn for which of the systems is best for specific scenarios of task, based on the outcome of the assessment modalities. Overview of the two systems The first system is the fire suppression rating schedule (FSRS), which is an adaptation of the Insurance Service Office (ISO) grading system. The ISO (2014) observed that the ISO grading system has two major focal points which are the evaluation of fire prevention and fire suppression capabilities. In both cases however, greater composition of attention is placed on communities and fire protection areas. In the first instance, the system seeks to identify mechanisms put in place by the communities and fire prevention areas as means of avoiding the occurrence of fire and other forms of emergency all together. The FSRS and for that matter ISO can therefore be said to be preventive in nature. In the second instance, the system makes admonition of possible occurrence of fire and emergency situations, no matter the kinds of prevention approaches put in place. Consequently, there are fire suppression capabilities that are measured by the system. By fire suppression capabilities, reference is being made to the ability of the community or fire prevention area to ensure that even in the instance of fire, there can be control of it at its very early stages. The rationale behind this is that fire tends to cause more harm to lives and property when it is allowed to last longer (Campasano, 2010). The second system is the standards of coverage, which is mainly used by the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and the commission on fire accreditation (CFA). This means that the standards of coverage as a system for performance measurement have very wide coverage as both the IAFC and CFA have a good number of associated affiliates. This system can be said to work on a more quantitative approach with independent and dependent variables identified in every instance of fire or emergency situation. According to the Sphere project (2004), the independent variable is mostly the expected levels of performance predetermined by the system. The dependent variable on the other hand is based on achievable emergency events outcome, which are often set and determined by the agency undertaking the fire and emergency rescue task. Unlike the ISO, the standards of coverage often focus on agencies rather than communities. It is therefore understandable why it works in a more quantitative form, given the fact that the scope of coverage within agencies are always smaller enough to quantify in a systematic manner. There is a guiding principle based on which this system function. The principle is for agencies to treat each incident of fire and emergency with a different but deserving events outcome. This way, events that require more resources receive them, whiles those with fewer resources receive them (Donahue & Tuohy, 2006). The strength of the systems One of the best ways to take decision on which of the two systems best applies in a given situation is to know the strengths that come with each. Writing on the FSRS and for that matter the ISO grading system, McConnell (2008) noted that a major strength with this system is that it is preventive in nature, meaning it focuses on ways to avoid fire and emergency, rather than ways of fighting them. In a related study, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009) mentioned that fire preventions has always been a cheaper avenue for the fire and emergency services when compared to fire fighting. This is because the cost in fire fighting could be highly unpredictable, given the fact that it depends on the extent and degree of damage. Another strength with the use of ISO grading system is that it is participatory, brining all stakeholders within the community and fire prevention area to be part of the prevention and suppression process. This means that when used as a performance measurement tool, the ISO would look at the role and preparedness of the entire community and fire prevention area. Because of this, using this system means that equipping the larger community to be abreast with factors that aid in preventing and suppressing fire. There are also strengths that can be attributed to the use of the standards of coverage. In the first place, the Spokane Fire Department (2010) mentioned that this system is highly focused, making it easier to implement. Very often, the focus is on the human resource within the agency that the system is being implemented, and also on the nature of fire and emergency. This means that in the use of this system, there is not much generalization of roles that needs to be played and resources that needs to be allocated to specific events. Rather, in a more quantitative manner, the quantum of resources that each event needs is what is given. As the issue of continuous process improvement (CPI) becomes very important in the fire and emergency services, this advantage with standards of coverage in avoiding wastes associated with overspending cannot be overlooked (Hudson, 2012). There is also the advantage with future community growth. This is because even though the system is not applied on a community basis, it actually requires that agencies that are evaluated with it put in place measures and structures that cater for the needs of future generations. This way, growth within the agency is focused on forecasting not just for the needs of today’s events but future events as well. Weaknesses associated with the systems The merits discussed notwithstanding, there are some weaknesses about the systems that ought to be known so that selection of any of them can be done in a more proactive manner and towards the need to avoiding these weaknesses. On the use of the ISO grading system, Bachtler and Brennan (1995) likened it community based approach to mediocrity, arguing that the qualitative perspective of the system does not guarantee effectiveness. The implication here is that when grading with the ISO grading system, fire and emergency services are required to make provisions for the larger community and fire prevention areas. Meanwhile, there are a lot of times that the resources and logistics that should be made available to make this a reality become woefully lacking. But because the system specifically requires community based implementation, it has been expected that the fewer resources will be made available for the whole community. It is out of such situations that the mediocrity sets in. Again, because there are several areas to cover with the community and fire prevention areas, implementation has always been a challenge for fire and emergency services if they want really want to be graded highly on the ISO scale. For many services, the funds to meet the requirements here have always been difficult to come by. The standard of coverage also has its own share of weaknesses. Comparing preventive fire fighting to curative fire fighting, a study from School fire (2013) lamented that several agencies that use the standards of coverage have done very little to prevent fire because there seem not be any specific requirement forcing them to do so. Meanwhile, in the event of onset of fire, the ability to have the right form of measure to controlling has always been difficult because the activities of such fires are highly predictable. This has actually made some analysts doubt and question the reality of the whole idea of standards of coverage, saying it is very difficult to quantify the coverage of fire and emergencies until they are entirely over. What this means is that the estimation and allocation of resources at the time of onset of fire and emergency situations can hardly be considered to be accurate since fire and emergency situations always take place as a continuous process, which is more qualitative than quantitative. Conclusion Indeed the works of fire and emergency workers can hardly be completed if there are no performance measurement tools guiding their utilization. This notwithstanding, there must always be sufficient thoughtfulness in selecting a particular tool. Based on the evaluative research above, the use of standards of coverage will be recommended for a more short term approach to fire and emergency. What is means is that in the events of fire and emergency, it would be more useful to adopt the standards of coverage to ensure that the right allocation of resource is done. But after fire and emergency situations have been controlled, it will be important to revert to the use of the ISO to ensure long lasting prevention of future events. References Bachtler, J.R. and Brennan, T.F. (1995). The Fire Chief’s Handbook. (5th ed.). Saddle Brook, NJ. Fire Engineering Books and Videos. Campasano, N. (2010). Community preparedness: Creating a model for change. Unpublished master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. Donahue, A. & Tuohy, R. (2006). Lessons we don’t learn: A study of the lessons of disasters, why we repeat them, and how we can learn them. Homeland Security Affairs, II(2), 1–28. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009). Are you ready? An in-depth guide to citizen preparedness. Washington, DC: author. Hudson, R. (2012). Emergency preparedness for responders and their families: Are we ready? Unpublished master’s thesis, National Fire Academy, Emmitsburg, MD. ISO (2014). Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) Overview. Retrieved July 10, 2014 from http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/2000/ppc2001.html McConnell, S. (2008). Theories of Urban Planning, London: Heinemann School fire (2013). How safe are our schools. Retrieved July 10, 2014 from http://otienoamisi.wordpress.com/2006/12/11/school-fires-hiw-safe-are-our-schools/ Sphere project (2004). Humanitarian charter and Minimum standards in Disaster response, 4th Edition. New York: Ultimate Press Limited Spokane Fire Department (2010). Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan – 2010 Update. Retrieved July 9, 2014 from http://www.spokanefire.org/documents/Spokane_SOC_and_Deployment_Plan_2010_Final.pdf References Campasano, N. (2010). Community preparedness: Creating a model for change. Unpublished master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. Donahue, A. & Tuohy, R. (2006). Lessons we don’t learn: A study of the lessons of disasters, why we repeat them, and how we can learn them. Homeland Security Affairs, II(2), 1–28. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009). Are you ready? An in-depth guide to citizen preparedness. Washington, DC: author. Hudson, R. (2012). Emergency preparedness for responders and their families: Are we ready? Unpublished master’s thesis, National Fire Academy, Emmitsburg, MD. ISO (2014). Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) Overview. Retrieved July 10, 2014 from http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/2000/ppc2001.html McConnell, S. (2008). Theories of Urban Planning, London: Heinemann School fire (2013). How safe are our schools. Retrieved July 10, 2014 from http://otienoamisi.wordpress.com/2006/12/11/school-fires-hiw-safe-are-our-schools/ Sphere project (2004). Humanitarian charter and Minimum standards in Disaster response, 4th Edition. New York: Ultimate Press Limited Spokane Fire Department (2010). Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan – 2010 Update. Retrieved July 9, 2014 from http://www.spokanefire.org/documents/Spokane_SOC_and_Deployment_Plan_2010_Final.pdf Read More