Technology is Not Leadership

[helicopper 1,050]

"Back to the Basics" & "Technology Is Not Leadership"

Good afternoon all. I discussed this a few months back and wanted to bring it back up again for various reasons. Just a few more thoughts as I have come across this again at some recent classes and workshops. Also after being involved in several recent multi-level, multi-hazard crisis management activities including exercises. Yes I will be vague on the who and what these were "to protect the innocent".

When planning and dealing with some natural and man-made disaster and crisis situations a majority of the discussion is on GIS, social media, tweets, twits, websites, flickrs, crisis management software, inter-connectivity, on line management systems, on line tools, on line tracking, blogs, etc.

There was and continues to be little to no discussion on some of the actual incident requirements or the fundamentals such as setting objectives, management, coordination, command and control, hands-on activities, decision making, ICS/EOC interface, etc.

"Leading on the tough days" is not handled only with technology. The focus was on the web applications and secondary, support materials versus the actual hands-on, practical managing of the tornado, terrorism event, mass shooting, plane crash, pan flu, or flood. The technology should support the response and not the other way around!

Maybe there is too much focus on looking at a computer screen or blackberries for an 8 or 12 hour shift. There needs to be experience and application of working with a variety of people, hashing out issues, crisis resolution, making practical decisions, etc. Sometimes I think a pencil, 201 form and T-card would be easier (for those who remember what a T-card is). All the technology in the world is not going to provide a better response than some smart and experienced people.

Just my two cents and reflections on what I am seeing! Yes, before you e-mail me I recognize technology is a very valuable asset and tool and we are much better off with it! Thanks again and have a great weekend.

A colleague wrote this in a blog about the reliance on technology in emergency management and I thought it would be well received here too.

As departments spend oodles of money on new EOC's, new vehicles for command & control or communications (all emblazoned with the buzz word "interoperability"), we spend precious little time and effort on management and leadership skill building. New managers get blackberries and other technology to help them do their job but do they get basic management and leadership training?

Points to consider as we move into another season of new officers and chiefs.

[wraftery 1,275]

Looks like nobody wants to take the lead and reply. Unless you're the lead dog, the scenery never changes.

In the event of a disaster like Japan's earthquake, electronic devices aren't much use to us. There must be something better.

How long do the batteries last in those T-Cards? Can you get replacements in Walmart?

[16fire5 693]

A colleague wrote this in a blog about the reliance on technology in emergency management and I thought it would be well received here too.

As departments spend oodles of money on new EOC's, new vehicles for command & control or communications (all emblazoned with the buzz word "interoperability"), we spend precious little time and effort on management and leadership skill building. New managers get blackberries and other technology to help them do their job but do they get basic management and leadership training?

Points to consider as we move into another season of new officers and chiefs.

In the past you posted an IA from a multiple alarm in the city of new york and pointed out the inculsion of things like a desigated safety officer and unit resource leader on the 2nd alarm and staging area manager on the 3rd. You were right on the ball when you made the point that a fire of the same magnitude 10 miles north would probably not get these important spots filled. How can we even talk about disasters like Japan when the smaller communities don't even know how to and there is no mechanism to incorportate the ICS tools at everyday incidents. It's not rocket science to train people as safety officers and resource unit leaders and planning section chiefs. That way when greater alarms are transmitted proper resources could be assigned. Unfortunatly what you end up seeing is chief officers from every responding department end up crowding the command post with no real job other than representing their agency.

[ffmc36 1]

My 9-5 is in the social media/technology space, and there are 2 things I tell all my new clients: 1) "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should". Just because your dept can get the newest car, or the latest technology can offer, does it mean you should? Are there other fundamentals that should be taken care of first, and do you truly believe you need that new gadget, or is it just something fun to have? 2) "Technology is here to help us do our jobs, not actually do our jobs for us". Let's say you get every rig outfitted with computers that can provide updated images/info of every address in your first-due, does that mean you stop doing preplans, stop thinking about how you'd ladder an apartment building when you're walking past it on your way home, stop alerting your drivers/members to road construction? Technology can sometimes make us complacent, we just have to view it as one of the many tools we have on a rig.

[firemoose827 324]

In the past you posted an IA from a multiple alarm in the city of new york and pointed out the inculsion of things like a desigated safety officer and unit resource leader on the 2nd alarm and staging area manager on the 3rd. You were right on the ball when you made the point that a fire of the same magnitude 10 miles north would probably not get these important spots filled. How can we even talk about disasters like Japan when the smaller communities don't even know how to and there is no mechanism to incorportate the ICS tools at everyday incidents. It's not rocket science to train people as safety officers and resource unit leaders and planning section chiefs. That way when greater alarms are transmitted proper resources could be assigned. Unfortunatly what you end up seeing is chief officers from every responding department end up crowding the command post with no real job other than representing their agency.

I agree 100% with that. Thats all you see by me, mostly a bunch of white coats that respond to the scene (even though their department is standing in for the hosting agency only and not actually on scene) and stand around the CP (if there is one designated) and usually dont know whats going on. But every department is always trying to keep up with new technology and trying to get grants for it. Meanwhile their air packs are falling apart, their turnout gear is approaching 15 years old and needs replaced...when does it end? They need to think basics first. Too many rely on technology without a good solid back-up plan.