In some respects, NIMS resembled a compliance framework (although to be clear, that’s not what it is). It also embraced the concept of the emergency operations center, which is in some ways similar to a network operations center in the digital world. In addition to adopting most of the incident command principles and practices included in the ICS, NIMS included standards for coordinating the distribution of resources. To achieve this, NIMS expanded upon the principles of the ICS. NIMS was born in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which underlined the importance of efficient communication not just between different agencies of the same type (like fire departments), but of entirely separate organizations. federal government developed an even more comprehensive approach to incident management called the National Incident Management System, or NIMS. A new chapter began in the early 2000s when the U.S. The history of incident response doesn’t end with the ICS. And it established a consistent set of terms that stakeholders can use to describe their actions during incident response, which makes it easier to communicate clearly.Īlthough the ICS was initially conceived to fight fires, it became the de facto standard for organizing incident response strategies of all types. It also defined several categories of incident response processes including operations, planning, logistics and finance. The ICS defined a hierarchy for incident response with an incident commander at the top. To fix the problem, California fire chiefs developed what became known as the Incident Command System, or ICS. Lacking a clear chain of command and a systematic approach to firefighting, the agencies struggled to deploy their resources rapidly and, thus, effectively. It was poor coordination among the various firefighting agencies that responded to blazes. The Laguna fire of 1970 brought matters to a head and was the catalyst for a new approach to incident response for fire agencies.Īfter assessing what was going wrong, the fire chiefs determined that it wasn’t a lack of equipment or personnel. ![]() Each year brought worse blazes than the last, with more land burned and more buildings lost. Things began to change for the better when stakeholders started thinking about better ways to put out fires-literally.īy the 1960s, fire chiefs in California realized that they were struggling to respond effectively to the wildfires that broke out every summer. But the more stakeholders involved, the harder it was to respond quickly and effectively. Historically, organizations may have been able to handle incidents well enough if the incidents required response from only one, small group. Differing approaches to assessing the priority of incidents. ![]() Varying organizational structures which made it hard to identify leaders, coordinate response efforts and delegate tasks.Lack of effective, consistent communication between stakeholders.Response efforts were ad hoc, and their effectiveness owed more than a little of their success to sheer luck. Fires, floods, infrastructure breakdowns and similar crises have been happening for millennia.įor most of history, however, humans lacked an efficient, purposeful way to manage these sorts of incidents. Societies have always had incidents, of course. Historical Problems in Incident Management So, let’s take a look at that history and examine where modern incident response concepts originated. To understand fully what it means to be an SRE today, you have to appreciate this deep history of incident management and response. On the contrary, the way SREs think about incident response, structure incident management teams and rank the priority of incidents owes much to incident management strategies developed in the offline world decades ago.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |