Shared Services or Shared Vision: There Is a Difference - Part 2

Last month's column opened a discussion about the concept of shared services and whether economies of scale are being overlooked. I closed by suggesting operational areas where shared services can have the potential for creating a more effective -- and possibly cost-effective -- operational posture. This time, the discussion centers on coming together for mutual benefit.

We in the fire and emergency service world are no different than any other segment of society. We have people who play well with others and we have people who do not like to share any of their toys with others. How can we bring a group of agencies together to assess the potential for service sharing?

The first step is to bring all potential stakeholders together for a facilitated meeting to assess what each group can bring to the equation. A "SWOT" workshop analysis -- an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of coming together to share services -- is a good format for conducting this meeting. Important things should come from this meeting. You need to develop an understanding of the ability and willingness of people to come together. Here are some questions you must ask and answer:

1. Why are people considering shared services?
2. Are the people within the constituent groups looking to share services willing and able to come together?
3. What levels of cooperation currently exist?
4. What areas of your operations lend themselves to being shared?
5. What incentives exist to promote this concept?
6. Who out there among the stakeholders will battle this concept with all of their heart and soul?

To assist you, let me share some thoughts on which areas lend themselves to a shared-services arrangement. Here is a guide that I have developed that may help you to decide whether shared services or consolidation are possible within your service region. Some things a shared-services study must accomplish:

1. Are you looking to share services, consolidate or regionalize your operation? This is the first and most important question, as the concepts are not exactly the same.
2. Find common ground.
3. Seek cooperative efforts.
4. Encourage participation.
5. Create trust in the process.
6. Are we assessing effectiveness or cost reduction? This question must be asked early and often.
7. "Fiscal considerations have historically been, and continue to be, one of the primary motivations for exploring some type of cooperative effort" (Making the Pieces Fit by Jack W. Snook and Jeffrey D. Johnson, 1997, p. 9).
8. Some thought to creation of future value

9. Problems

   1. Loss of identity
   2. Fear of loss of control
   3. Fear of change
   4. Fear of making mistakes
   5. Lack of communication between and among agencies
   6. Reasons for approaching a consolidation study
10. Are there issues of growth in these communities?
11. Do not rush the process.

12. Remind everyone that Snook and Johnson (1997) speak of three forms of consolidation:

    1. Partial -- Organizations remain separate but specialized functions are shared
    2. Functional -- Organizations remain separate but functions are combined such as training, fire prevention apparatus maintenance, logistical and support functions
    3. Operational -- Two or more departments are joined into one.
13. Might it be possible to share services through inter-local agreements rather than consolidate or regionalize your operation?
14. Snook and Johnson (1997) state that "consolidation allows for better use of scarce resources, the reduction of duplicative efforts and greater staff flexibility and capability" (p. 17).

15. Don't underestimate the time it will take to educate people about this process. Let me now suggest operational areas where shared services can have the potential for creating a more effective and possibly cost-effective operational posture:

    1. Training
    2. Vehicle maintenance
    3. Fire prevention
    4. Code enforcement
    5. Public education
    6. Emergency medical services
    7. Logistical support and quartermaster services
    8. Automatic, area-wide, mutual aid agreements that get people moving at the same time
    9. Co-location of services and apparatus at common, geographically located facilities

It is not my intent to speak against the concept of shared services. Neither is it my recommendation to race headlong into agreements that are not well-thought-out and based upon solid research. If you are interested in the concepts of shared services, consolidation or the regional delivery of services, I urge you to go on the Internet and start studying.

I cannot make your decisions for you. I can only suggest that shared service, consolidation and regionalization have merit. It is up to you to arrive at a decision as to which method, or combination of methods, is best for you. If you need any help, just reach out.

DR. HARRY R. CARTER, Ph.D., CFO, MIFireE, is a Firehouse® contributing editor. A municipal fire protection consultant based in Adelphia, NJ, he is the former president of the International Society of Fire Service Instructors. Dr. Carter is a past chief and active life member of the Adelphia Fire Company. Currently chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners for Howell Township District 2, he retired from the Newark, NJ, Fire Department in 1999 as a battalion commander. He also served as chief of training and commander of the Hazardous Materials Response Team. Dr. Carter is vice president of the American Branch of the Institution of Fire Engineers (MIFireE). He recently published Living My Dream: Dr. Harry Carter's 2006 FIRE Act Road Trip, which was also the subject of a Firehouse.com blog. He may be contacted at [email protected].