Team Situation Awareness: An All Hands Approach to Safer Fire Ground Operations
By: Mark VonAppen
Palo Alto Fire Department/ Nobody Gets Left Behind Training Group
Have you ever watched a really efficient fire company in action? Have you ever wondered how a crew can move almost effortlessly through an evolution with little apparent communication and few breaks in the routine? A group of 2 to 5 people acting as one, accomplishing all assigned tasks at maximum efficiency. Well-scripted and choreographed fire ground operations do not happen by accident. Strong fire ground performance is the combination of communication (both verbal and non verbal), dedication, mentoring, and training all of which culminate in a shared understanding of what each of the crew members responsibilities are, how they interrelate, and anticipating future actions. This is also known as Team Situation Awareness (TSA).
Learn the job above you, and beyond Team Situation Awareness (TSA)
Team SA is defined as “the degree to which every team member possesses the SA required for his or her responsibilities”. The success or failure of a team depends on the success or failure of each of its team members. If any one of the team members has poor SA, it can lead to a critical error in performance that can undermine the success of the entire team. By this definition, each team member needs to have a high level of SA on those factors that are relevant for his or her job. It is not sufficient for one member of the team to be aware of critical information if the team member who needs that information is not aware.
In the fire service we are often told to learn the job of the person above our rank. This is valuable from the stand point of having flexibility in staffing if a fire fighter is needed for a drivers position or an Engineer works out of class in an Officers position. There are benefits to this that go far beyond the day or two spent in out of class positions. As crewmembers extend themselves and work in various capacities within their department their awareness level of tasks necessary to perform in other job classifications is increased.
Slowly, and often without realizing it, they are increasing TSA. If this can be accomplished in a simple way, imagine how much team cohesion can be increased if crews actively trained on each other’s jobs skills and responsibilities on a regular basis. As crewmembers train on the others jobs within their work group they are better able to anticipate what the others actions will be through a shared understanding of environmental influences and how they affect decision making.
Through Shared Situation Awareness, communication can often be non- verbal. This can lead to a more consolidated approach to dealing with emergencies. Little time is wasted on communicating routine tasks because everyone shares the same values in terms of accomplishing the overall goal. Without the need to verbally communicate, the members are able process additional safety information regarding their dynamic, hostile environment. Sharing every detail of each person's job would only create a great deal of “noise” to sort through to get needed information. Radio time is often at a premium. The ability to communicate non- verbally, or talk less, frees up valuable radio time for priority transmissions such as, “Persons trapped, All clear, Mayday, Vacate, or other
pertinent information.
Define roles, so things go unspoken
Probationary Fire fighter: “What do you want me to do if we catch a fire?”
Company Officer: “I dunno. We’ll figure it out when we get there. Don’t worry about it.”
The conversation that is scripted above is similar to a few I had with Company Officers while I was a relief Fire fighter early in my career. Once, on the way to a fire and I got the “We’ll figure it out later. Don’t worry about it,” treatment. I was detailed out to a different house every time I came to work for my first few years. Nothing gave me more anxiety than this conversation.
Believe me, I worried about it. I figured it out after a while. The Company Officers who approached me regarding their expectations on the fire ground had a plan, and it involved all of us working together safely and efficiently. Those who avoided the talk in general had no plan. I always appreciated the Officer who told me what their base expectations were. It gave me a point of reference. If I was given no direction on scene because my supervisor was busy, I could feel comfortable getting to work based on what my Officer told me when I reported for duty. I knew based upon expectations that my actions in most circumstances would reflect the orders that my Officer would give if they were standing right next to me. The Officer would discuss with me what their responsibilities were at the scene, as well as the Engineer, and what they both expected of me. How my actions or lack of action would influence their ability to accomplish their goals. The Engineer would mentor me and tell me about their thoughts and concerns were.
Sometimes, the kitchen table would fill up with a number of like-minded team members all concerned with maximizing performance, passing job knowledge forward, and making sure we were all safe. Various general emergency responses were roughly addressed. One Captain said to me,“Don’t talk to me for the first 30 seconds when we get there. I’m going to be very busy. If we’re going to do something different, I’ll tell you.” Another Officer told me, “Take 5 seconds while you are putting on your air pack and (size up the incident) for yourself. Think about what you are seeing and anticipate what I’m going to need you to do.” These profundities stick out in my mind and have stayed with me. It said that they trusted my ability to follow directions and complete tasks.
It also afforded me a certain amount of autonomy, within limits. I was reminded that my Officer does not have time to deal with a person assigned to them who does not understand their job responsibilities. Bigger things needed to be dealt with and there is no time for an incompetent team member.
The success or failure of a team depends on the success or failure of each of its team members. I knew that if I did not perform as expected another conversation would take place, a conversation I did not want to be a part of. Certainly, not all incidents can be table- topped prior to arrival, as all emergencies are unique. However, through a mutual understanding of expectations (Shared SA) a rough outline of what is to occur has been discussed. The team knows the plan. This again stream lines operations because less time is needed to communicate directly on the emergency scene. The argument for Standard Operating Guidelines (SOG’s) is also made along the same lines. If your department is not an SOG department, have these talks with your people. Figure it out before you get the bell.
Interdependent responsibilities: Understood by all
Simply talking about responsibilities is not sufficient. Crews must train together often so that they get a ‘feel’ for how they work together. In the TSA model each team member has a sub-goal that interrelates with the other team members to support the achievement of the overall goal. The definition of a team spells it out. A team is not just any group of individuals; rather teams have a few defining characteristics.
A team is:
‘A distinguishable set of two or more people who interact dynamically, interdependently and adaptively toward a common and valued goal/objective/mission, who have each been assigned specific roles or functions to perform.’
If any team member is unable to complete or carry out tasks relating to their sub-goal, the overall team goal may suffer or may not get accomplished at all. A smoothly operating crew knows through training what eachothers strengths and weaknesses are. They are able to tailor their evolutions and play to the others strengths. In order to work at maximum efficiency, crews must not only discuss emergency operations but plan for them.
In addition to having a plan, they must be able to put that plan into action. Execution as a team is critical to efficient operations. To execute the plan, crews must rehearse the timing of fire ground operations through frequent training. Through manipulative training each team member will see how their role contributes to success or lack of success, in actual or simulated emergencies. This extends beyond the company level. The company is effectively a single team member in an alarm assignment. A group of individual companies comprises the team. Each companies actions build upon and support the actions of the others. All companies must share the same understanding of what the big picture is in order to mitigate an emergency.
“Individual commitment to a group effort - that is what makes a team work.”
–Vincent Lombardi
Mark vonAppen has been a fire fighter for the City of Palo Alto for 12 years. He is currently assigned to the Palo Alto Fire Department Training Division and is a fire fighter on the Ladder Company. He is a committee member for California State Fire Training and has contributed to the development of Fire Fighter Survival and Rapid Intervention curriculums. Mark is an Academy instructor for the Santa Clara County Joint Fire Academy, Recruit Instructor for Palo Alto Fire, and a member of the ‘Nobody Gets Left Behind’ training group. He has been involved in training and public speaking for 6 years. Mark is also lead instructor for ‘Read and React: Calling the Mayday’ which was featured in the California State Training Officers Symposium Fresno in 2009 and is offered at the TAK Response Conference in September 2010.
