Emergency Incident Management Systems. Louis N. Molino, Sr.
that are not regularly involved in emergency response is problematic. A 2013 Crisis Response Journal article contended that due to the intermittent and pieced together approach of Japan's IMS method, there has been a breakdown in command, control, communication, collaboration, and coordination. Past disaster responses failed to integrate all resources under one command, and it led to a more confusing and less productive response. In many instances, nonprofits, businesses, and other nongovernmental resources acted independently of the command structure in place (Howitt et al. 2013). This helps provide insight that a haphazard implementation of an IMS method is equally as detrimental to a response as having no IMS method used.
It does appear as if Japan is working toward a national IMS method. Howitt et al. (2013) suggests that Japan was considering the ICS method and another overarching method to integrate resources; however, any strides in that area appear to have been without significant gains. A 2018 article in the Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management revealed that while many strides have been made to improving information flow and chains of command, there are still obstacles that prevent it from being more functional. In fact, the authors even state that the largest barrier to an integrated IMS method for Japan is the sectionalism that is inherently built into the Japanese government (Okada & Ogura, 2014).
While Japan has seen issues in the ICS method that they use, they have also seen great success in customizing and utilizing a Japanese version of the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS). In fact, when they began to customize the American version, the University of Tokyo School of Medicine included the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) in the customization process. The reason that the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) was consulted is twofold. The first reason is that they are considered by many around the world to be the foremost authority in Hospital Incident Command System (HICS). The second reason was that they needed clarification on some issues to enable a better translation (Backer, 2016). In 2016, the University of Tokyo released the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) guidebook (based on the 2014 revision) in Japanese, as well as guidance on Incident Planning Guides (IPGs) and the Incident Response Guide (IRG).
3.17 Maldives
Little was found historically about the legal mandates of implementing an IMS method in the Maldives. It was however obvious that the Maldives began utilizing an IMS method after signing the Hyogo Framework for disaster reduction. As was mentioned previously in this chapter, the Hyogo Framework brought all individuals and organizations into a common arrangement to create better coordination when responding to a disaster (Hyogo Framework, 2005).
As a part of strengthening disaster preparedness, it was suggested that the Incident Command System should be used to ensure that all countries respond to a disaster (Penuel, Statler, & Hagen, 2013). The Maldives was one of the 10 countries of ASEAN who signed an agreement to approve the adoption of the ICS system in 2003. Numerous ICS classes were offered that same year, and the Maldives sent representatives to these classes (Ramos, 2012).
There was a collaborative effort to train countries about the proper use of the ICS system. This collaboration included the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). There were minor to moderate adaptions made to the ICS system for each country, including the Maldives. This adaption was based on the structure of the countries national government while being cognizant of cultural considerations. This specific training offered Train‐the‐Trainer ICS course curriculum to key national agencies and trainers (Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, 2009).
In respect to hospital incident management, the Maldives appear to have a system in place. In the Ministry of Health's guidance on Health Emergency Operations Plan ([HEOP], 2018), the manual states that an (unspecified) IMS method will be used to manage disaster. Unfortunately, no information could be found on which IMS method would be used.
3.18 Malaysia
Malaysia is a country that has fully embraced the use of the ICS method. The ICS method used in Malaysia appears to be the same exact model that is used in the United States. Not only do they require that it be used on land, but they also require the use of ICS at sea, and in hospitals. While the ICS method is required in hospitals, only the ICS method is currently utilized rather than the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS). Recent calls for better disaster resilience in Malaysian hospitals has suggested that a modified version of the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) be researched and implemented to meet the needs of the hospitals in this nation (Samsuddin et al. 2018). Historically, little was found about the laws requiring the use of ICS beyond the initial ASEAN agreement; however, research found a lot of information about ICS classes offered in Malaysia (ASEAN Disaster Workshop, n.d.).
3.19 Mexico
While information was limited on the use of an IMS method in Mexico, it was found that there were multiple agreements between Mexico and other North American Countries that points to the use of the ICS method. According to this information, along the border with the United States, whenever a joint response is needed, the ICS method will be used (Mexico–US Joint Contingency Plan, 2017). Looking deeper into the use of ICS in Mexico, it was found that numerous (bomberos) fire departments also utilize ICS to manage incidents. Urby (2014) states that ICS method is used in Mexico; however, there was often a lack of leadership or in some jurisdictions, there is only a partial implementation. Partial implementation and/or lack of leadership when using any IMS method will typically leave gaps when trying to integrate outside resources.
In researching the use of Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) in Mexico, there were no indicators that it is used in Mexico. This is not to say that the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) is not used in Mexico; it just means that no information was found to confirm or deny that it was used.
3.20 New Zealand
The IMS system used by New Zealand is the Coordinated Incident Management System (CIMS) method. The CIMS method is very similar to the NIMS method used in the United States. This method was first introduced in 1998, and it is based on the same four basic tenets as the NIMS method, but they use different words. In New Zealand, those base tenets are identified as “Four‐Rs.” Those “Four Rs” are the following:
Risk reduction
Readiness
Response
Recovery (CIMS, 2014)
If we compare this to the NIMS method used in the United States, risk reduction is equivalent to mitigation, readiness is the equivalent of planning, and response and recovery are the same. Much like NIMS method, the Coordinated Incident Management System (CIMS, 2014) is flexible, uses common structures, roles, and responsibilities, it requires common terminology, and it is modular and scalable. This system is responsive to each community's needs, it fosters a coordination of response (among differing agencies), a coordination of resources, and integrates information management and communications. It also dictates a manageable span of control (number of people supervised), and it provides for the facilities needed for the response. It also is constantly evaluating the system to ensure that the Coordinated Incident Management System (CIMS) meets the ever‐changing needs of first responders. One minor difference that was found from the NIMS method is that the Coordinated Incident Management System (CIMS) appears to put more of an emphasis on international compatibility with other IMS methods (CIMS, 2014).
While the Coordinated Incident Management System (CIMS, 2014) method is similar to the NIMS method in many ways, there are also some subtle differences. One definition in the Coordinated Incident Management System (CIMS) method defines coordination as being assisted by a defined command and control. According to this definition, command is vertical to a single agency, while control is horizontal to outside agencies. Another difference is in the general staff positions. Instead of four (or five if Intelligence and Investigation is enacted) general staff functions, the New Zealand IMS method has six general staff functions, and they identify the Incident Commander (IC) as Control instead of command. These six functions