Integrated Tactical Accountability

  Part two (July 2011) discussed how to achieve and maintain tactical accountability using simple strategic tools and processes that can eliminate freelancing and make tactical accountability work. Part three will: 1. Introduce the three...


  Part two (July 2011) discussed how to achieve and maintain tactical accountability using simple strategic tools and processes that can eliminate freelancing and make tactical accountability work. Part three will: 1. Introduce the three levels of fireground freelancing. 2...


To access the remainder of this piece of premium content, you must be registered with Firehouse. Already have an account? Login

Register in seconds by connecting with your preferred Social Network.

OR

Complete the registration form.

Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required

How to Eliminate Geographic Freelancing

The “Command Caveat” for eliminating geographic freelancing is: Never assign something to do without someplace to do it. An assignment that enables geographic freelancing sounds something like this: “Truck 31 primary search.” This assignment is a green light for Truck 31 to freelance geographically; if Truck 31 is going to decide where to enter and where to search, the company is freelancing geographically. Geographic freelancing can be strategic, tactical or task level; geographic freelancing means tactical accountability is not being maintained and likely has not been achieved.

By assigning a company or team an objective, an access location and a work location, tactical accountability will be achieved by the who-what-where nature of the assignment. This can be done by incorporating the words “from” and “on” into all tactical assignments (Figure 3). Returning to the Truck 31 example, it would sound like this: “Truck 31, primary search from side A on floor 2.” (Who is Truck 31? What is primary search? Where is "from side A on floor 2"?)

How to Eliminate Functional Freelancing

The “Command Caveat” for eliminating functional freelancing is: Never send somebody someplace without something to do when they get there. A strategic-level example is the previously mentioned Battalion 2 that was directed to “on your arrival establish Division C.” A tactical example would be to convey an assignment without a work location: “Engine 35, on your arrival you’ll be interior.” Interior what? Interior division? Confine and extinguish? Primary search? Make coffee? The likely scenario is that Engine 35 will park, grab favorite tools, enter the building, scan the interior, see something shiny through the smoke haze and off they go. If a resource will decide what to do, they will be freelancing functionally; functional freelancing can be strategic, tactical or task level.

Another example of functional freelancing is an “assignment” I heard on the fireground a few years ago (apparatus designators have been changed to protect the guilty): “Truck XX, go up to floor 2 and see if there’s something you can do to help Engine XX.” That “assignment” was a free pass for Truck XX to freelance functionally.

When Truck XX does find something to do, you will have no idea where they are or what they are doing. If Engine XX didn’t need assistance, did Truck XX ascend to floor 3? Are they are at staging sipping Gatorade? Of course, Truck XX could call you on the radio and let you know where they are and what they are doing, but that generates a few problems: you don’t have their passport, it generates extra radio traffic and makes you a gatekeeper of freelancing. The bottom line is that Truck XX will likely be freelancing both geographically and functionally.

Divisions and Groups: The ITAC Difference

For decades, the ICS distinction between a division and a group has been that “divisions are geographic” and “groups are functional.” Although nice and tidy, these definitions conjure two questions:

1. Should teams assigned to a division do something functional?

2. Should teams assigned to a group do their function someplace geographic?

If the answer to both is affirmative, then what is the true difference between a division and a group? Consider these ITAC definitions:

1. A division is assigned multiple objectives that will be performed within the supervisor’s geographic area of responsibility. Division supervisors are designated geographically and report to an individual who has branch responsibility.

2 A group is assigned a single objective that will be performed within the supervisor’s geographic area of responsibility. Group supervisors are designated functionally and report to an individual who has branch responsibility.

These definitions are more accurate and more useful than the traditional model. Take a look at the two status boards shown below. Based on my definitions, you should be able to determine which is the division status board and which is the group status board.