Month August 2024

ICS Training Sucks – Progress Inhibited by Bias

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 5 Comments

It’s been a while since I’ve written directly toward my years-long rally against our current approach to Incident Command System (ICS) training. Some of these themes I’ve touched on in the past, but recent discussions on this and other topics have gotten the concept of our biases interfering with progress stuck in my head.

It is difficult for us, as humans, to move forward, to be truly progressive and innovative, when we are in a way contaminated by what we know about the current system which we wish to improve. This knowledge brings with it an inherent bias – good, bad, or otherwise – which influences our vision, reasoning, and decisions. Though on the other hand, knowledge of the existing system gives us a foundation from which we can work, often having awareness of what does and does not work.

I’m sure there have been some type of psychological studies done on such things. I’ve certainly thought about, in my continued rally against our current approach to ICS training, what that training could look like if we set individuals to develop something new if they’ve never seen the current training. Sure, the current training has a lot of valuable components, but overall, it’s poorly designed, with changes and updates through decades still based upon curriculum that was poorly developed, though with good intentions, so long ago.

In recent months, having had discussions with people about various things across emergency management that require improvement, from how we assess preparedness, to how we develop plans, to how we respond, and even looking at the entire US emergency management enterprise itself. Every one of these discussions, trying to imagine what a new system or methodology could look like, with every one of these people (myself included), were infected by an inherent bias that stemmed from what is. Again, I’m left wondering, what would someone build if they had no prior knowledge of what currently exists.

Of course, what would be built wouldn’t be flawless. To some solutions, those of us in the know may even shake our heads, saying that certain things have already been tried but were proven to fail (though perhaps under very different circumstances which may no longer be relevant). Some solutions, however, could be truly innovative.

The notion, perhaps, is a bit silly, as I’m not sure we could expect anyone to build, for example, a new ICS curriculum, without having subject matter expertise in ICS (either their own or through SMEs who would guide and advise on the curriculum). These SMEs, inevitably, would have taken ICS training somewhere along their journey.

All that said, I’m not sure it’s possible for us to eliminate our bias in many of these situations. Even the most visionary of people can’t shed that baggage. But we can certainly improve how we approach it. I think a significant strategy would be having a facilitator who is a champion of the goal and who understands the challenges, who can lead a group through the process. I’d also suggest having a real-time ‘red team’ (Contrarian?) element as part of the group, who can signal when the group is exercising too much bias brought forth from what they know of the current implementation.

In the example of reimagining ICS training, I’d suggest that the group not be permitted to even access the current curriculum during this effort. They should also start from the beginning of the instructional design process, identifying needs and developing training objectives from scratch, rather than recycling or even referencing the current curriculum. The objectives really need to answer the question – ‘What do we want participants to know or do at the completion of the course?’. Levels of training are certainly a given, but perhaps we need to reframe to what is used elsewhere in public safety, such as the OSHA 1910.120 standard which uses the levels of Awareness, Operations, Technician, and Command. Or the DHS model which uses Awareness, Performance, and Management & Planning. We need to further eliminate other bias we bring with us, such as the concept of each level of training only consisting of one course. Perhaps multiple courses are required to accomplish what is needed at each level? I don’t have the answers to any of these questions, but all of these things, and more, should be considered in any real discussion about a new and improved curriculum.

Of course, any discussions on new and improved ICS curriculum need to begin at the policy level, approving the funding and the effort and reinforcing the goal of having a curriculum that better serves our response efforts.

How would you limit the influence of bias in innovation?

© 2024 Tim Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

Mixing Exercise Types

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

As with many things, we are taught exercises in a rather siloed fashion. First by category: discussion-based and operations-based. Then by type. That kind of compartmentalization is generally a necessity in adult education methodology. Individually, each exercise type has its own pros and cons. Rarely, however, do we ever seen or heard of combining exercise types within one initiative.

The first time I did this was several years ago. My company was designing a series of functional exercises to be used for locations around the country. While the exercises were focused on response, one goal of our client was to include some aspects of recovery in the exercise. At about six hours, the exercises weren’t long. Time jumps can be awkward, and for the small amount of time dedicated to recovery in the exercise, the impact of the disruption from the time jump within the exercise may not net a positive result. Add to that the time it would take to provide a quantity of new information that would be needed to make a recovery-oriented functional exercise component viable.

Instead of trying to shoe-horn this in, we opted to stop the functional component of the exercise at an established time and introduce a discussion on disaster recovery. With the proper introduction and just a bit of information to provide context in addition to what they had already been working on, the discussion went smoothly and accomplished everything with which we were charged. The participants were also able to draw on information and actions from the response-focused functional component of the exercise.

We’re recently developed another exercise that begins with a tabletop exercise to establish context and premise then splits the participants into two groups which are each challenged with some operations-based activity: one deploying to a COOP location to test functionality (a drill), the other charged with developing plans to address the evolving implications of the initial incident (a functional exercise). Following the operations-based exercises, the two groups will reconvene to debrief on their activities and lessons learned before going into a hotwash.

Making this happen is easy enough. Obviously we need to ensure that objectives align with the expected activities. You also want to make sure that the dual exercise modalities are appropriate for the same participants. While I try not to be hung up on the nuances of documentation, though documentation is important, especially when it comes to grant compliance and ensuring that everyone understands the structure and expectations of the exercise. If we are mixing a discussion-based exercise and an operations-based exercise, one of the biggest questions is likely what foundational document to use – a SitMan or ExPlan. Generally, since the operations-based exercises can have greater consequences regarding safety and miscommunication, I’d suggest defaulting to an ExPlan, though be sure to include information that addresses the needs of the discussion-based exercise component in your ExPlan as well as the player briefing.

In running the exercise, be sure to have a clear transition from one exercise type to the other, especially if there are multiple locations and/or players are spread out. Players should be given information that prepares them for the transition in the player briefing. Having exercise staff (controllers/facilitators and evaluators) properly prepared for this through clearly communicating expectations at the C/E briefing and in C/E documentation is obviously important, as well as ensuring they are ready for the transition.

I’d love to hear other success stories from those who may have done something similar.

© 2024 Tim Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®