incident command system incident command system the incident command system (ics) is a standardized approach to the command, control, and coordination of emergency response providing a common hierarchy within which responders from multiple agencies can be effective. ics basic organization chart (ics-100 level depicted) ics was initially developed to address problems of inter-agency responses to wildfires in california and arizona but is now a component of the national incident management system (nims) in the us, where it has evolved into use in all-hazards situations, ranging from active shootings to hazmat scenes. in addition, ics has acted as a pattern for similar approaches internationally. overview ics consists of a standard management hierarchy and procedures for managing temporary incident(s) of any size. ics procedures should be pre-established and sanctioned by participating authorities, and personnel should be well-trained prior to an incident. ics includes procedures to select and form temporary management hierarchies to control funds, personnel, facilities, equipment, and communications. personnel are assigned according to established standards and procedures previously sanctioned by participating authorities. ics is a system designed to be used or applied from the time an incident occurs until the requirement for management and operations no longer exist. ics is interdisciplinary and organizationally flexible to meet the following management challenges: meets the needs of a jurisdiction to cope with incidents of any kind or complexity (i.e. it expands or contracts as needed). allows personnel from a wide variety of agencies to meld rapidly into a common management structure with common terminology. provide logistical and administrative support to operational staff. be cost effective by avoiding duplication of efforts, and continuing overhead. provide a unified, centrally authorized emergency organization. history the ics concept was formed in 1968 at a meeting of fire chiefs in southern california. the program reflects the management hierarchy of the us navy, and at first was used mainly to fight california wildfires. during the 1970s, ics was fully developed during massive wildfire suppression efforts in california (firescope) that followed a series of catastrophic wildfires, starting with the massive laguna fire in 1970. property damage ran into the millions, and many people died or were injured. studies determined that response problems often related to communication and management deficiencies rather than lack of resources or failure of tactics. weaknesses in incident management were often due to: lack of accountability, including unclear chain of command and supervision. poor communication due to both inefficient uses of available communications systems and conflicting codes and terminology. lack of an orderly, systematic planning process. no effective predefined way to integrate inter-agency requirements into the management structure and planning process. “freelancing” by individuals within the first response team without direction from a team leader (ic) and those with specialized skills during an incident and without coordination with other first responders lack of knowledge with common terminology during an incident. emergency managers determined that the existing management structures — frequently unique to each agency — did not scale to dealing with massive mutual aid responses involving dozens of distinct agencies and when these various agencies worked together their specific training and procedures clashed. as a result, a new command and control paradigm was collaboratively developed to provide a consistent, integrated framework for the management of all incidents from small incidents to large, multi-agency emergencies. at the beginning of this work, despite the recognition that there were incident or field level shortfalls in organization and terminology, there was no mention of the need to develop an on the ground incident management system like ics. most of the efforts were focused on the multiagency coordination challenges above the incident or field level. it was not until 1972 when firefighting resources of southern california organized for potential emergencies (firescope) was formed that this need was recognized and the concept of ics was first discussed. also, ics was originally called field command operations system. ics became a national model for command structures at a fire, crime scene or major incident. ics was used in new york at the first attack on the world trade center in 1993. on 1 march 2004, the department of homeland security, in accordance with the passage of homeland security presidential directive 5 (hspd-5) calling for a standardized approach to incident management amongst all federal, state, and local agencies, developed the national incident management system (nims) which integrates ics. additionally, it was mandated that nims (and thus ics) must be utilized to manage emergencies in order to receive federal funding. the superfund amendment and re-authorization act title iii mandated that all first responders to a hazardous materials emergency must be properly trained and equipped in accordance with 29 cfr 1910.120(q). this standard represents osha's recognition of ics. hspd-5 and thus the national incident management system came about as a direct result of the terrorist attacks on 11 september 2001, which created numerous all-hazard, mass casualty, multi-agency incidents. jurisdiction and legitimacy in the united states, ics has been tested by more than 30 years of emergency and non-emergency applications. all levels of government are required to maintain differing levels of ics training and private sector organizations regularly use ics for management of events. ics is widespread in use from law enforcement to every-day business, as the basic goals of clear communication, accountability, and the efficient use of resources are common to incident and emergency management as well as daily operations. ics is mandated by law for all hazardous materials responses nationally and for many other emergency operations in most states. in practice, virtually all ems and disaster response agencies utilize ics, in part after the united states department of homeland security mandated the use of ics for emergency services throughout the united states as a condition for federal preparedness funding. as part of fema's national response plan (nrp), the system was expanded and integrated into the national incident management system (nims). the united nations recommended the use of ics as an international standard. ics is also used by agencies in canada. new zealand has implemented a similar system, known as the coordinated incident management system, australia has the australasian inter-service incident management system and british columbia, canada, has bcerms developed by the emergency management bc. in brazil, ics is also used by the fire department of the state of rio de janeiro (cbmerj) and by the civil defense of the state of rio de janeiro in every emergency or large-scale events. basis incidents incidents are defined within ics as unplanned situations necessitating a response. examples of incidents may include: emergency medical situations (ambulance service) hazardous material spills, releases to the air (toxic chemicals), releases to a drinking water supply hostage crises or active shooter situation. man-made disasters such as vehicle crashes, industrial accidents, train derailments, or structure fires natural disasters such as wildfires, flooding, earthquake or tornado public health incidents, such as disease outbreaks search and rescue operations technological crisis cyberattack, cybersecurity incident, or major information security breach. terrorist attacks traffic incidents events events are defined within ics as planned situations. incident command is increasingly applied to events both in emergency management and non-emergency management settings. examples of events may include: concerts parades and other ceremonies fairs and other gatherings training exercises key concepts unity of command each individual participating in the operation reports to only one supervisor. this eliminates the potential for individuals to receive conflicting orders from a variety of supervisors, thus increasing accountability, preventing freelancing, improving the flow of information, helping with the coordination of operational efforts, and enhancing operational safety. this concept is fundamental to the ics chain of command structure. common terminology individual response agencies previously developed their protocols separately, and subsequently developed their terminology separately. this can lead to confusion as a word may have a different meaning for each organization. when different organizations are required to work together, the use of common terminology is an essential element in team cohesion and communications, both internally and with other organizations responding to the incident. an incident command system promotes the use of a common terminology and has an associated glossary of terms that help bring consistency to position titles, the description of resources and how they can be organized, the type and names of incident facilities, and a host of other subjects. the use of common terminology is most evident in the titles of command roles, such as incident commander, safety officer or operations section chief. management by objective incidents are managed by aiming towards specific objectives. objectives are ranked by priority; should be as specific as possible; must be attainable; and if possible given a working time-frame. objectives are accomplished by first outlining strategies (general plans of action), then determining appropriate tactics (how the strategy will be executed) for the chosen strategy. flexible and modular organization incident command structure is organized in such a way as to expand and contract as needed by the incident scope, resources and hazards. command is established in a top-down fashion, with the most important and authoritative positions established first. for example, incident command is established by the first arriving unit. only positions that are required at the time should be established. in most cases, very few positions within the command structure will need to be activated. for example, a single fire truck at a dumpster fire will have the officer filling the role of ic, with no other roles required. as more trucks get added to a larger incident, more roles will be delegated to other officers and the incident commander (ic) role will probably be handed to a more-senior officer. only in the largest and most complex operations would the full ics organization be staffed. conversely, as an incident scales down, roles will be merged back up the tree until there is just the ic role remaining. span of control to limit the number of responsibilities and resources being managed by any individual, the ics requires that any single person's span of control should be between three and seven individuals, with five being ideal. in other words, one manager should have no more than seven people working under them at any given time. if more than seven resources are being managed by an individual, then that individual is being overloaded and the command structure needs to be expanded by delegating responsibilities (e.g. by defining new sections, divisions, or task forces). if fewer than three, then the position's authority can probably be absorbed by the next highest rung in the chain of command. coordination one of the benefits of the ics is that it allows a way to coordinate a set of organizations who may otherwise work together sporadically. while much training material emphasizes the hierarchical aspects of the ics, it can also be seen as an inter-organizational network of responders. these network qualities allow the ics flexibility and expertise of a range of organizations. but the network aspects of the ics also create management challenges. one study of ics after-action reports found that ics tended to enjoy higher coordination when there was strong pre-existing trust and working relationships between members, but struggled when authority of the ics was contested and when the networks of responders was highly diverse. coordination on any incident or event is facilitated with the implementation of the following concepts: incident action plans incident action plans (iaps) ensures cohesion amongst anyone involved toward strictly set goals. these goals are set for specific operational periods. they provide supervisors with direct action plans to communicate incident objectives to both operational and support personnel. they include measurable, strategic objectives set for achievement within a time frame (also known as an operational period) which is usually 12 hours but can be any length of time. hazardous material incidents (hazmat) must be written, and are prepared by the planning section, but other incident reports can be both verbal and/or written. the consolidated iap is a very important component of the ics that reduces freelancing and ensures a coordinated response. at the simplest level, all incident action plans must have four elements: what do we want to do? who is responsible for doing it? how do we communicate with each other? what is the procedure if someone is injured? the content of the iap is organized by a number of standardized ics forms that allow for accurate and precise documentation of an incident. fema ics forms ics