Introduction to the Incident Command System (ICS)
The Incident Command System (ICS) is a standardized organization model or method for incident response and management during disasters. The system is made up of standard management and leadership hierarchy procedures, including processes meant to support various types of incidents. It does not just respect jurisdictional and agency authority, but also supports synchronized efforts among different disaster response and management teams and agencies. ICS supports fast, effective and efficient development of universal planning processes and management of facilities, personnel, communication, and equipment within a common structure of organization and operations. Based on pre-determined standards that involved authorities agree upon, personnel are trained in a common language and processes, and tasks assigned to each. The ICS system ensures that disaster response teams experience increased organization from the initial phases of a disaster all the way to its conclusion (Lutz and Lindell, 2008).

The ICS system was developed in the 1970s by a Southern California-based and Arizona-based interagency group. It was developed in response to consecutive wild fires that occurred regularly in the region. According to wild fire disaster relief evidence and past efforts in disaster recovery, failure can rarely point to lack of resources or efforts but lack of resources and individuals coordination. Every agency and individuals involved in disaster relief have a unique communication process, hierarchy, and language of operations. Conflicts and uncertainty surround various non-governmental and governmental organizations on resource distribution and authority. The need for a more collaborative and open management system led to the development of ICS and its widespread deployment (Lutz and Lindell, 2008).

With increased popularity, the ICS system is increasingly assessed through scholarly studies. According to Lutz and Lindell (2008), inter-organizational coordination of societal efforts in organizing and deploying natural disasters response is the core purpose of ICS. Bigley and Roberts (2001) identified shifting of authority as need arises, the structuring mechanisms with role switching, and system resetting as the disaster response requires; standardized rules, tools, and routines maintenance; and deployment of reliable management methods as the major factors responsible for ICS model’s success. Cardwell and Cooney (2000) put emphasis on standardization as the major factor that leads to ICS application across and within agencies and organizations.

ICS has two major pros that include a standardized leadership structure within and among disaster response teams and external partners, and predetermined external and internal alignments. People with basic training on ICS protocols can easily learn the system due to the characteristics of uniform terminology, a predefined hierarchy, Incident Action Plans, and defined organizational structure (Cole, 2000). Firstly, the Incident Action Plan is responsible for assigning individuals and group functions and roles in economic, community, and ecological restoration processes across federal, state, and local disaster recovery hierarchy levels. Secondly, despite external alignment with outside organizations, such as volunteer groups or organizations that do not use ICS, and extra workload and complications, the system can offer organizations with greater effectiveness, flexibility, cross-functional and cross-jurisdictional working relationships, transitioning command authority procedures, and communication plans from a single management level to another. The structure of the ICS puts emphasis on federal administrators’ vertical integration, localities and liaisons, and disaster relief workers at the ground level into a cohesive communication system of management (Cole, 2000).

The ICS is a disaster response model designed to streamline communications among stakeholders such as liaisons, administrators, and local disaster relief aid workers. According to the ICS-300 training manual, it takes 14 features to boost ICS effectiveness. It also shows how to structure the chain command, disaster response, and decision-making. According to Lutz and Lindell (2008), the features together with adequate staffing, front-line disaster response, and relationships development before the disaster can generally improve an individual’s working climate for disaster response teams. Shared experiences and inter-organizational training can further increase ICS deployment to promote cooperation between individuals and organizations working on disaster response techniques, plans, and community development (Lutz and Lindell, 2008).

According to Cole (2000), the ICS model also presents various potential issues such as multi-agency integration effectiveness, limited resource mobilization, disagreements among agencies on who has the authority to change ICS, and inconsistent deployment among various organizations. Furthermore, according to ICS model critics, Buck et al. (2006) argues that various factors related to the actual disaster response are often overlooked. For instance, more time is dedicated to formal organization resources, excluding unorganized groups or individuals from engaging in disaster response activities. Wenger (1990) also pinpoints the ICS application limitations. ICS’ intrinsic attributes of command and control cause it to function well in quasi-military agencies only. A good example is the police department. A community of professional responders with interpersonal trust and technical proficiency can utilize ICS during disaster response due to its social sophistication (Buck et al., 2006).

In summary, ICS effectiveness depends on its context. The type or size of a disaster and the public infrastructure complexity in disaster response are key to assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of ICS. The anticipated ICS effectiveness is dependent on the agency type and disaster type in question (Dynes, 1970). Based on this structure, ICS can operate most...…the ICS deployment, the varied Corps schedules allowed for informal successful practices dissemination. For instance, two members of a crew came up with a standardized procedure for equipment decontamination and it was implemented by other response teams. A general knowledge continuity was also possible among the participating response team members due to the staggered Corps schedules. Execution of duties differed in various critical aspects of the disaster response operation, especially for team members who were part of the initial disaster response. As the AmeriCorps members worked took control over the incident, operational period was reduced from 72 hours to 24 hours, especially for volunteers who participated in the initial stage when many people volunteered to help out. Operations during the early phase of response included coordinating with volunteers, Volunteer Organization Active in Disasters (VOADs), incoming CNCS members, and developing of the command center’s physical infrastructure (CNCS, 2014).

Conclusion

ICS was effective during the flood disaster that occur in Missouri in 2015, especially for disaster response team members who were familiar with the model. However, a more standardized and detailed training approach for future disaster response team members would render the ICS more successful generally. The model significantly enhanced the disaster response process. Improving the work assignment process, collaboration, and communication would build upon the ICS Missouri deployment experience for deployment of the model in larger disasters bound to present more complex challenges. Generally, response team members and leaders had a positive experience and would deploy the ICS model for future disasters. Motivation activities aimed at boosting response team member morale, increasing relaxation opportunities after operations, replicating the Missouri’s food and accommodation practices implementation can help improve the experience of response team members in the future. The ICS model was successful in deploying food during the Missouri incident.

The ICS model deployment increased the efficiency and enhanced hierarchical communication during the incident response. The model is also adaptable and can be scaled to offer relief from disasters of varied type, size and intensity. Stress tests could be deployed to simulate the AmeriCorps Disaster Response Teams implementation of the model and manpower in response to disasters of all kinds and magnitude using the ICS model. Other ICS model improvements could include information sharing before, during and after deployment, better training operations, and field coordination on assigned roles among response team members and crew leaders. ICS model continuation and development sin the future within its structural framework can be of benefit to members working under the ICS, and eventually helping members of the community affected by the disaster in question.…