Fire and Emergency Management - Research Paper Example

FIRE AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FIRE AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Introduction Thereare several factors and conditions that influence the work and activities of the fire and emergency service. One of these important factors or conditions has to do with the fire and emergency management, where it is expected that stakeholders within the service will approach their roles in a well planned and carefully executed manner (Kirchsteiger, 2011). To do this, one of the most important approaches to take is to ensure that there is a system that defines how things should be done in the case of fire or other emergency situations. This means that planning is a crucial aspect of fire and emergency management (Kirwan, Hale & Hopkins, 2012). Then also, the need to ensure that there is a standard by which the execution of task is carried out is very crucial in engaging in fire and emergency management. What is more, the role of evaluation and assessment of the outcome of the work of the fire and emergency service is also very important in fire and emergency management. There are several ways in which stakeholders within the service have tried to achieve all these forms and roles that come under fire and emergency management. One of these is by ensuring that there are standards and guidelines through which the execution of roles within the service follows. Two of these are the use of insurance services organization (ISO) grading system and standards of coverage. This paper seeks to outline the history behind these two guidelines, as well as the purposes for their use. The positives and negatives that come with each of these is also discussed in this research paper. History There is a rich history that comes with the use of both the ISO grading system and the standards of coverage. The ISO grading system is actually adopted version of the fire suppression rating schedule (FSRS). The FSRS had been used as an independent rating system for several years in selected States until the need to ensuring that there is a global standardization of the activities of the fire and emergency service was brought up (ISO, 2014). Meanwhile, the insurance service office (ISO) had been functioning as an internationally recognized body that was responsible for setting standards of operation for various industries across the globe. To ensure that the rating schedule used for the purposes of fire and emergency fighting was at par with what was internationally recognized, the rating schedule was merged with the ISO standards to form what is today referred to as the ISO grading system of fire fighting. The history behind the standards of coverage can however be traced to very specific fire and emergency agencies across the country. This is because when the use of the standards of coverage started as an assessment system, it was only certified and used by the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC). These fire chiefs were the ones who ensured that within the limit of the agencies that managed, there was a standard that defined the way they operated and responded to fire. With time, it became accepted by the Commission on Fire Accreditation as the major assessment system that must be in place in order for a new agency to be given accreditation to operate. As all new and emerging agencies started using the standards of coverage, it became a nationwide form of standard for assessment (McConnell, 2008). Purpose One would have thought that since the ISO grading system and standard of coverage both seek to assess the activities of fire departments, only one of these will be in use at any particular time. There is however evidence to show that most fire departments and agencies prefer to have these two being used at the same time. The reason for this is that the two seem to serve very different purposes. As far as the ISO grading system is concerned, it has been noted to be highly useful when it comes to standardization. This means that it is useful in setting yardsticks with which the activities of a particular fire department can be measured as being at par with internationally recognized standards. In effect, the purpose of the ISO grading system is to ensure that individual fire departments function in ways that can be considered as internationally acceptable. As globalization becomes a very important concept in today’s world, one cannot deny the need and importance of operating a fire and emergency department whose standards are measured against international grades. This is because the whole world is constantly becoming a global village where through standards are not merely measured by what one outfit is making for itself but what prevails in the larger global context. It is therefore true to say that the purpose of the ISO grading system is to assess a fire department’s fire defense capabilities by applying ISO’s self generated standards and a graduated numerical schedule, which focuses on the protection of property assets. At the other side of the argument, the measure purpose associated with the use of the standards of coverage is to ensure that as individual fire departments strive to be standardized, they will not forget the true nature of the scope of operations. This is because regardless of the need to meet international standards, one cannot deny the fact that each fire department or agency has its own challenges, needs and opportunities. As the popular saying goes, charity begins at home. Therefore, the standards of coverage is useful in ensuring that at every point in time, fire departments can equip themselves with standards and rating that best suit the needs that prevail in their most immediate environment, and as a particular fire or emergency event requires. Addressing the purpose of the standards of coverage, the Sphere project (2004) mentioned that whereas international standards presented by the ISO may be regarded as neutral, there are very specific locations and fire events that even require that standards of practice will go higher than what is given in international standards. At the same time, there are instances where some places or fire events do not require as much resources as may be found in the ISO system. At such times, the need to have a well defined system that comes in to avoid any form of waste or underperformance is required in the standards of coverage. The standards of coverage can therefore be said to be in place with the purpose of assessing the fire department’s capabilities and defensible position related to strategic planning, adverse events, and clear method to assess service delivery decisions (School fire, 2013). Positives and Negatives associated with each System As the ISO grading system and standards of coverage each come with its own purpose, it is possible to see these as two different entities, each of which has its own positives and negatives. These positives and negatives are summarized in the table below and subsequently discussed in detail. ISO Grading System Standards of Coverage Positive Quantitative in its application Utilizes a preventive approach It is participatory in nature and community based Utilizes a futuristic approach It is highly focused and agency based It is easy to implement and assessment plan Negative May promote mediocrity in its assessment due to its large scope. It is resistive to change as its more standardized Its outcome may be easily manipulated since its quantitative It comes with implementation difficulty due to size of coverage It can be seen to be costly in the long term Could be easily monopolized as it is not community based Positives of the ISO Grading System As indicated in the table above, the ISO grading system is highly quantitative in its application. The advantage that comes with this is that it is able to determine very specific things to measure or look out for as part of the evaluation. Any quantitative evaluation system is said to follow the SMART rule, where the goals and its assessment outcomes are said to be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound. In most cases of fire fighting events, managers become very concerned with knowing exactly what went into the process of suppression and fighting. But where there are only qualitative assessment outcomes, it is very difficult to pass real judgment as to whether or not standards were followed. It is for this reason that the fact that the ISO grading system is quantitative in nature is considered a major positive development about it in promoting effectiveness at the various departments. Through this means, its usage is easily replicable at other places since the standard never changes, no matter where it is taken. Another important advantage with the use of the ISO grading system is that it is highly preventive in nature. What this means is that it seeks to assess the readiness of the fire departments in such a way that focuses on preventing the occurrence of fire and emergencies. This is often achieved through community advocacy programs where the community is sensitized about best approaches to take to prevent cases of fire and emergency (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2010). Through the provisions of the grading system also, he fire department is expected to have a preventive focused resource base that ensures that fire is actually suppressed and prevented from happening rather than waiting for it to happen before tackling it. Meanwhile, the preventive approach to fire fighting has been lauded as very useful when it comes to long term cost saving (Johansson, 2009). This is due to the unpredictable nature that fire and emergency events can take. Once there is prevention, such unpredictable cost is saved. What is more, whenever communities are engaged in preventive fire programs, it is easier to mobilize human resource that are ready to be part of the program than when there is an outbreak and one is mobilizing expertise to fight it. As already indicated, the ISO grading system focuses on community participation as part of its preventive approach. Such communication based and participatory approach has in itself been considered to come with so many advantages when compared to a situation where the whole system of fire suppression is left in the hands of a few people. For example, by including the community as a stakeholder in the fire suppression exercise, the message that is sent out there is that fire management is actually the responsibility of all. Therefore, the community is always willing and ready to open up its doors and offer fire and emergency workers any needed support they require from them. Lately, the issue of lack of resources for the fire and emergency service continues to come up in the media and other public discourse. The use of the ISO grading system is therefore seen as one approach to ensure that the community can adequately play their part in making the work of the fire department easier and resourceful. This is because the ISO grading system has always graded the innovative ideas that fire managers have applied in ensuring that they are able to tap as much resources from the community as possible as part of its goals to focus on community wide property. Negatives of the ISO Grading System There are some negatives that come with the use of the ISO grading system. these negatives do not necessarily make the ISO grading system unfit to be used but spells out areas that fire and emergency managers must be on the lookout for if they would want to be effective with their roles. The first of these problems has to do with the issue of possible mediocrity emanating from the use of the ISO grading system. As a system that focuses on community wide involvement, there have been questions as to how efficient it can become in covering every aspect of community prevention to its most detailed conclusion. This is because of the sizes of the community in which most fire departments cover. Certainly where there is so much to cover within a very short time, the tendency that fire and emergency managers will only cover up on the surfaces of their roles is higher. There has therefore been criticism that even though it is said that the ISO assesses a fire departments fire defense capabilities, it only gives room for fire departments to be mediocre so as to attain expected grading (He, Fernando & Luo, 2008). Then also, there is the issue of the use of the ISO grading system, forcing fire departments to be restricted to conservativeness instead of being dynamic and changing with time. The reason this is said is that for fire departments to met standards set by the ISO, they always have to do the things in exactly the same way as defined by the grading system. This way, the true measure of dynamism and innovation among the fire departments become lacking due to fire that diverting from the set standards will not make them get the required grades. Meanwhile, fire prevention and fighting continues to be an ever changing concept that demands a high sense of innovation to meet new challenges. Society itself can be noted to be very dynamic, always changing with time. And as society changes, its needs for fire and emergency services also change. Consequently, the only way to truly respond to the needs of modern society is to ensure that there is a form of change that is focused on current situations. The third negative issue associated with the use of ISO grading systems for fire departments is that the outcome of assessment and evaluation may easily be exposed to manipulation. Such manipulation may lead to cheating and the result of the cheating would be the true standards that are expected will not be realized. The reason for this is that assessment with the ISO grading system is based on ISOs self generated standards and a graduated numerical schedule. Because the generated standards are numerical in nature, corrupt officers and managers may easily interfere with outcomes or scores. This could be done for several purposes including the intentional sabotage of a given fire department. Manipulation and cheating in the grading system may also take place with the view of favoring certain fire departments. Meanwhile, it is only when there is a trustworthy system of measurement that the actual weaknesses and strengths associated with various fire departments can be identified and addressed. Where the wrong impressions of outcome of grading are given, it is very difficult to find specific recommendations and solutions to challenges facing such fire departments (Hudson, 2012). Lastly, issues with implementation difficulties for fire departments, including highly cost of initiate implementation may be noted. The commonest reason that could be attributable to this situation is that the ISO grading system also expects fire department to be community based in their approach. Even though the need to be community based has its own advantages which have already been discussed, it is also important to note that there are a lot of fire departments that are forced to operate at the community level with the same scope of scanty resources that can only cater for a few agencies. This means that fire departments that do not want to be mediocre in the execution of their roles are further forced to go through the hard means possible, which is to make their departments capital consuming. It is not surprising that there continues to be reports of how some fire managers wrongfully allocate financial resources by focusing so much on how to meet their standards and failing to use available resources to them in motivating their human resource – a condition that has lead to high employee turnover in the service (Donahue & Tuohy, 2006). Positives of the Standards of Coverage The first positive issue that can be associated with the use of the standards of coverage as the grading system for fire departments is the fact that it utilizes futuristic approach. This is because the standards of coverage assess fire departments by the use of clear methods to assess past, present and future service delivery decisions. By implication, fire departments that want to meet the standards and grading scores by the standards of coverage do not only have to focus on current issues but base on past issues to improve the present situation, whiles making provisions to ensure that the future generation will also benefit from the actions of the present generation. As part of efforts to be futuristic in their approach, fire departments have been seen to be taking up the use of highly sophisticated and advanced forms of equipment and instrument in the delivery of their work, including the use of information systems. Such advanced forms of equipment are used as they are seen as the future of the service. Again, the requirements from the standards of coverage require fire departments to be highly focused on specific agencies and the needs of their immediate environment. It is not surprising that the standards of coverage is said to focus on life safety and operational effectiveness (Spokane Fire Department, 2010). By implication, instead of concerning itself to be a jack of all trade and master of none, the standards of coverage gives room for the fire departments to specialize on how they can produce the very best of outcomes with the little area in which they operate to provide safety and save lives. Certainly, this is a means by which efficiency can be said to be promoted with the use and adaptation of the standards of coverage. This is because the resources that are made available, no matter how small they may be, are mostly focused on only a hand and sizeable area that poses no challenge with the adequate use of resources. It is not surprising to find fire departments that follow the standards of coverage, focusing on such things as human resource training and empowerment. Then also, because fire departments using the standards of coverage have a relatively smaller area to cover, which is mostly one agency only; it is easier to implement the guidelines and expected outcomes of this system. also for those tasked with the duty of carrying out the assessment, they are always given the advantage of conducting very detailed and thorough assessment as the areas of evaluation are mostly few and non-complicated. Meanwhile, the importance of having a type of assessment outcome that can be considered as credible and accurate has been mentioned at different sections of the paper. For example, it has been indicated that core decisions on how to resource the fire and emergency departments are mostly made based on the outcome of assessment of how they go about their roles. The same can be said about the allocation of personnel whose expertise meets very specific needs of places where agencies operate. In effect, because the area of coverage is always small, it is possible to ensure that policy implementers are able to make the most out of the evaluation and assessment outcomes. Negatives of the Standards of Coverage Two key shortcomings or weaknesses can be seen with the use of the standards of coverage for fire departments. The first of this has to do with the fact that going by the standards of the standards of coverage has been associated with long term cost for fire departments and for the overall idea of fire and emergency suppression. This is because the system seeks to emphasize on curative interventions rather than preventive ones. By curative interventions, reference is made to interventions that tend to solve existing fire and emergency events as thoroughly as duty demands but do not actually put in place policies to prevent such fire and emergency. Meanwhile, it is common knowledge that the occurrence of fire and other forms of emergencies come with a type of cost that is unpredictable. In most cases, there is the lost of human lives and environmental property. This must however not be seen to be a contrary claim to the fact that the standards of coverage is futuristic in nature because in terms of future, it only looks at making resources and technology available for future usage when there is fire and not necessarily preventing the occurrence of fire (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009). The other negative aspect of the standards of coverage is that its usage is prone to monopoly by fire managers. This is possible because in the use of the standards of coverage, much authority is given in the hands of fire managers of various agencies and departments to use their innovative ideas to meet the needs of their environment and outfits. As much as it is a positive development that fire managers must be independent, versatile and innovative, it could also be very tempting that some will take advantage of the situation to put in place only monopolistic policies and interventions that they deem to be appropriate. Under such forms of leadership, it cannot be expected that there will be employee engagement when it comes to decision making process. But should there have been such internationally recognized standards as the ISO, then it could be expected that fire managers cannot be monopolistic by imposing their ideas on others but would open up to others and ensure that together, the larger agency decides on the best way for the future of the work that they carry out (Campasano, 2010). Conclusion Several important points have been raised as part of the discussion on the use of ISO grading system and standards of coverage. Until now, it is very certain that all these two forms of guidelines have come as important variables in attaining prolific fire and emergency management. This is because in their own ways, each of these has come to serve very specific purposes in the roles that the fire and emergency service is expected to carry out. However, as two different entities, the research paper has been helpful in establishing that the ISO grading system and the standards of coverage are each needed in very specific situations and for very specific purposes. As far as the ISO grading system is concerned, this can be referred to as a system of assessment that is very useful in attaining a highly quantitative measure of the exact input and output of the fire and emergency service. Meanwhile, the need for such quantification have been justified in literature as Bachtler and Brennan (1995) noted that it is only when there is quantification that there can be a real assessment of how the resources being put into the service is being utilized. Consequently, the ISO grading system is needed to ensure the effective use of resources. Once there is effectiveness, it is important to balance it out with a sense of efficiency. The research paper has showed that the standards of coverage help to achieve such efficiency because it is very specific in its utilization. This way, most forms of waste that comes from attempting to use resources within a scope that cannot be well covered is avoided. 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. He, Y., Fernando, A., & Luo, M. (2008). Determination of interface height from measured parameter profile in enclosure fire experiment. Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 31, 19-98. Hudson, R. (2012). Emergency preparedness for responders and their families: Are we ready? Unpublished master’s thesis, National Fire Academy, Emmitsburg, MD. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2010). Safety Culture. Safety Series No.75-INSAG-4, Vienna, 1991. ISO (2014). Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) Overview. Retrieved July 10, 2014 from http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/2000/ppc2001.html Johansson, H. (2009). Decision Analysis in Fire Safety Engineering – Analysing Investments in Fire Safety. Report 1026, Dept. of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University, Lund. Kirchsteiger, C. (2011). Workshop summary evaluation and how to proceed – International workshop on promotion of technical harmonisation on risk based decision-making. Safety Science. Vol. 40, No. 1-4, 2002. Kirwan, B., Hale, A.R., & Hopkins A. (2012). Changing Regulation - Controlling Risks in Society. Pergamon, Amsterdam 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