Читать книгу Emergency Incident Management Systems - Mark Warnick S., Louis N. Molino Sr - Страница 24

Prior to the IMS methods, there would often be problems with incident wide organizational structures. This was because they were nonexistent in most instances. While each agency had their own chain of command, an overarching chain of command between agencies (especially on a major incident) typically was not part of the response protocols. Complicating the matter even more, there was usually no attempt made to form a collaborative organizational structure. More often than not, individuals responding to an incident would not collaborate to create a formal, or even an informal structure. They failed to recognize that this action would have increased collaboration, communication, and cooperation with each other.

The lack of collaboration, cooperation, and communication often led to freelancing of various agencies. Freelancing refers to agencies undertaking the actions that they felt were operationally necessary, while being oblivious to the needs (and tactics) of other agencies. These actions usually increased the risk to life safety for other first responders and led to taking longer to bring the incident under control. Moreover, the sense of accomplishment was not there. Sometimes agencies would do “their part” of the response and then feel as if other agencies did not do their part in bringing the incident under control. In some instances, the agency that accomplished their task first would chide, or even spitefully ask if they needed the other agency to do their job. As with most of the rest of the reasons for creating and IMS method, this created more conflict.