Acronyms Flashcards
Reaching a decision
D.A.D.D.I.
Deciding what the problem is
Assessing risk
Deciding tactical priorities
Developing a plan that gets from one position to another
Identifying and prioritising objectives
Operational team effectiveness
T.A.S.K
Team membership factors
Attitude matching
Skills matching
Knowledge matching
Team membership factors
The urgent nature of an incident may limit the ability of a leader to match each function with the ideal team membership. When they have more time, or the situation allows, they should consider the following factors:
Knowledge matching
Consider individual and team knowledge and match this to the required function. An incident commander may support this knowledge with a clear briefing. They may provide additional support or additional monitoring.
Skills matching
Consider the existing skills of the teams and individuals in relation to the tasks needed by the incident plan. It may be possible at some incidents to also consider the need for developing skills or expertise. Where the situation allows, they may wish to consider managing the exposure of team members to situations or tasks which will build their skills and experience.
Attitude matching
Some aspects of attitude contribute to a team working well together, being cohesive and motivated. Such attitudes might be stable personality traits or they may come and go, affected by mood. The way a person reacts to pressure and stress at an incident can affect both of these. The leader may wish to consider these factors when allocating tasks to individuals or teams. Attitude can affect how likely they are to work well together and achieve the intended result.
Leadership behaviours
BUDDSF
- Being self aware
- Understanding the use of Authority
- Displaying and istilling confidence
- Demonstrating and fostering trust
- Setting expectations and standards
- Fostering two way communiction
Reaching a decision
There are a number of ways that an incident commander may reach a decision. These can be broadly grouped into two main categories:
- Intuitive decision making (CP or RPD)
- Analytical decision making (AD) (SOP’s)
Decision making in the operational context
- Understand their starting position
- Know their desired end position
- Develop a plan that gets from one position to another
Assertive and effective commanders:
- Are confident and self aware
- Are well trained and competent
- Have sound situational awareness
- Are able to lead, direct and instruct others
- Can communicate effectively
- Are able to plan and implement
- Can apply sound judgement and effective decision-making
- Are able to adapt to changing situations
- Are calm and controlled
Factors that will likely to influence with way
decisions are made fall under 4 headings:
SECO
- Situational -time,moral,stress,fatigue,uncertainty
- Emotional - anxieties over: legal,public,peer scrutiny
- Cognitive - Mental capacity,competence, technical expertise,risk perception,distraction,incident goals
- Organisational - No clear policy,policy to restrictive, safety culture, organisational risk appetite / risk aversion
Decision traps
P.A.W.O.F
Decision made on the basis of Part of the situation (such as a cue or a goal) whilst not taking account of the overall picture
Decision Aversion
Decision is based on the Wrong interpretation
Decision does not fit with the Objectives, tactical priorities or incident plan
Failure to actively monitor and review
Decision made on the basis of Part of the situation (such as a cue or a goal) whilst not taking account of the overall picture
A great deal of decision making occurs on the incident ground, from crew members to those with commanding roles. The operational context is complex and there may be a requirement to make decisions on a wide variety of issues. There are times when decisions are made that relate to very narrow or specific elements of the situation, such as a particular cue or goal. However, there is a danger of unintended consequences if decisions are made on these elements in isolation, without considering the impact on other activities, objectives or the incident as a whole.
Decision Aversion
Decision aversion is a failure to make a decision. High risk, high pressure and rapid change can create uncertainty about what to do. Decision makers may also be uncertain about possible alternatives and consequences. This may be challenging if the stakes are high and they have to choose what to do. For example, a commander must make a timely decision to determine if they are operating in either offensive or defensive mode, as there is no default tactical mode. Excessively focusing on accountability and scrutiny can make decision aversion worse. They may develop an excessive focus on potential negative consequences rather than the tactical concerns of the incident. Sometimes this may show as risk-aversion with a focus on self-protection rather than making an operational decision. They may not make a decision or seek to refer decisions to another decision maker. Fire and rescue services should be aware that their organisational culture may affect decision aversion.
Decision is based on the Wrong interpretation
Poor situational awareness can lead to an interpretation of the incident that does not match the reality of the situation. A decision then made on the wrong interpretation may lead to unintended consequences.
Decision does not fit with the Objectives, tactical priorities or incident plan
One of the pitfalls of some of the more reflexive, intuitive process is that sometimes the planning processes are by-passed. This means that an action might be intuitively or automatically implemented without considering the actual incident objective, goal or tactical plan. There may be times when the response they select might not fit with achieving the wider goal for an incident.
Failure to actively monitor and review
Decision makers may not be aware of the progress of an incident. If they fail to monitor and review the impact of their decisions, it can affect their situational awareness. If they are not aware of progress it’s difficult to make good predictions about what is happening. It also makes it harder to understand how the situation might develop.
Factors that may effect joint decision making
P.I.G.F.L.O.S
Poor communication
Interpersonal conflict
Group think
Failure to challenge
Lack of confidence
Organisational culture
Status
Poor communication
Team members may not communicate the right information to have a shared understanding of the situation. Terms may be misinterpreted or have different meanings to individuals. Clear briefing and communication between teams will help to avoid conflicts in understanding and what teams expect to happen.
Interpersonal conflict
Interpersonal conflict between team members may manifest in a lack of co-operation, or a lack of motivation to engage.
Group think
On some occasions the group can suspend rational judgement to maintain group cohesion. People may set aside their personal opinions and adopt the opinion of the group. An example may be a team accepting an inappropriate proposal without challenge, or being hesitant to contradict their team leader with valid information. People who are opposed to the decision may remain quiet to avoid affecting the dynamic of the group, or their own status within it.
Failure to challenge
Team members may fail to challenge assumptions because they wrongly assume that others share the same understanding of the situation and task.
Lack of confidence
Team members may lack the confidence to contribute new or relevant information.They may be affected by their own uncertainty or their status in the group.
Organisational culture
The culture of the organisation can drive behaviours both on and off the incident ground. Typical examples include how people react to status, and how likely they are to challenge assumptions. Fire and rescue services should understand the impact of their culture on team decision making.
Status
Incident commanders should avoid judging how relevant information is by the status of the person who offers it. Expertise or competence may sometimes be relevant to weighing information. But not always; Leaders should understand how their pre-conceptions about status can affect their judgement. Useful information can come from any member of the team.
Effective communication has 8 areas:
Clear
Relevant
Timely
Understood
Questions assumptions
Assertive
Encourages effective listening
Matches words and behaviours
Factors which effect Situational Awareness
I.F.S.T.A.L.L.M.C
Information overload
Fatigue
Stress
Tunnel vison
Automatic Actions
Location of command point
Limits of human perception
Mental model
Confirmation bias
Structural frames
PTSD MM
Portal or rigid frame
Due to the potential for rapid structural failure, consider the use of defensive firefighting techniques
Timber frame
Consider the presence of timber framed construction in new buildings
Due to rapid firespread and the potential for early collapse in timber framed buildings under construction, consider the use of defensive firefighting techniques
Consider the presence of concealed spaces and the potential for undetected fire spread
Consider the age and condition of the timber
Consider the effects of the fire’s duration and intensity on the timber
Steel frame
Due to the potential for collapse, consider the use of defensive firefighting techniques •
Identify whether steel has been protected from the effects of fire by cladding, and if so assess the condition of the cladding
Assess what temperature the steel has been subjected to and for how long •
Monitor adjacent compartments or structures for conducted heat transfer
Demountable structures
Due to the potential for rapid structural failure, consider the use of defensive firefighting techniques
Masonry
Consider the age, condition and build quality of masonry
Consider the potential for and impact of collapse, which can happen in the later stages of a fire or after the fire has been extinguished
Modules
Monitor all adjacent compartments for fire spread
Effective Situational awareness
CARS M
Clear briefings
Appropriate spans of control
Regular review
Self awareness of stress or fatigue
Minimising distractions during critical tasks
The incident commander’s situational awareness forms a basis for:
Assessing risk and making decisions
Identifying and prioritising objectives
Developing an incident plan
Anticipating how an incident will develop
Predicting the consequences of actions
The key principles of effective joint working are:
Co-location
Communication
Co-ordination
Joint understanding of risks
Shared situational awareness
