In this case, the department would need to employ 47 firefighters in order to have a minimum of 36 on duty for a platoon shift. Multiplied by 4 platoons, 188 firefighters are needed to produce 144 for duty. Fluctuations in leave time or in compensatory time off would, of course, cause that number to vary.

To estimate workload, consider these statistics reported for 1990 by 159 fire departments with populations over 100,000 in a survey conducted by the Phoenix Fire Department.

When only fire and EMS run statistics are used to judge department productivity, the results appear to indicate that a small percentage of time, as little as five percent in some cases, is spent "working." The number of response runs per day, even in large communities, varies greatly from station to station. A survey of the average daily runs of all types per vehicle, in a large city department with 50 vehicles and 2 shifts per 24 hours, showed a low-end response average rate of less than 1 run per shift for a particular station to a high of 2.7 runs per shift for another station.

To apply the concept of efficiency and effectiveness to the suppression subsystem, we might say that building fire stations on the lowest cost land would constitute an efficient use of financial resources. However, if the lowest cost lots were in poor response locations, the department would lose in length of response time. Advanced computer model studies are conducted to determine the best location for fire stations.

Studying plans can have a measurable effect on departmental efficiency. Volunteer or call firefighters represent a better use of financial resources, but quicker response times by onduty crews may result in greater response effectiveness. Communities that combine police and fire duties are concerned with efficient use of resources without compromising results.
Built-in fire protection also can have a significant impact on the productivity factor for a fire department. Fire alarm detection systems and automatic fire suppression systems have had tremendous success in reducing fire problems so that fire suppression teams can more easily (with fewer resources) control and contain a fire.

Today's safety standards have had a positive effect on reducing the number of fire service injuries and deaths. Safety and suppression equipment standards also have improved firefighter productivity, although the number of firefighters per engine company and fire suppression entry standards have become more labor intensive. The much-debated National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1500 identifies nationally recognized firefighter safety standards. The current debate centers on the recommended staffing levels for responding engine and truck companies. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) already requires that no fewer than two firefighters should enter a dangerous environment (requiring SCBAs), with two properly prepared firefighters standing ready to back up the response.

The mission and goals of the organization play an important role in the design of the response system. The city or county general plan should indicate expected service levels and demands for public safety. Today's fire service response challenges include EMS, hazardous materials and disaster response and support, and heavy rescue. Given the service parameters, we can match the response needs to the community's emergency response challenges. Target hazards, community economic conditions, age and condition of structures, age of population, access to emergency challenges, amount and type of industrial uses, and other special challenges (such as airports, major hospitals, and institutions, etc.) affect the nature and design of the emergency response team. Local government tax revenues and other support funds also influence the amount of fire service effort that the jurisdiction can afford.

The management team should consider all the factors associated with productive, efficient, and effective fire suppression response. The key components in developing a productive fire service response system are the strength of the management team developing response systems and the ability of the team leaders (hopefully many of the same "managers") to build a team response focused on attaining desired results (mission, goals, and objectives). The management system is in a constant cycle of improvement, "tuning" department efforts to real-world conditions, based on team strength, adaptability, and the resources available to meet the needs of the community.

Fire service leaders should tailor their departmental response system to meet the demands and requests of their "customers." It is important to develop close ties and good communication with the community and governmental leaders, instead of dictating services in a vacuum. Productive teams have active leaders and managers who work with people for the common good. Departments should play an active role in a broader scope of services instead of sitting and waiting for the next call, protecting turf, or avoiding new services.

Systems Analysis Applied to Productivity
To obtain an accurate picture of fire department productivity, it is necessary to examine all of the fire protection subsystems in the calculation. The Systems Analysis process gives managers a model approach to fire protection planning. The management should consider outputs (mission and goals and other service demands) prior to planning inputs (resources, personnel, and other expenditures). The entire process should be scrutinized closely using evaluation systems so that each time the cycle repeats itself (budget cycle), the team will be better prepared to plan the use of inputs. The values and management ability of the team hinge on the overall strength of commitment to achieve the plan. This and the team understanding of expectations (outputs) leads to the process called "throughput," whereby inputs are actually turned into desired outputs.

During the mid 1970s, a study was conducted in the United States that examined the major fire protection subsystems within a community and displayed their interrelationships.1 The purposes of the study were outlined in the introduction:

The fire problem, coupled with the rampant inflation of recent years and the attendant rise in the costs of equipment and labor, has made it more difficult than ever for communities to choose among a range of alternatives for fire protection service. City administrators have had to cut back on expenditures for all types of public services, and to critically examine budget requests from a cost-savings point of view. It seems clear that what is necessary is a measuring device to aid the fire service and city officials in providing a continuously improving level of service in the face of financial restraints. Thus, it is imperative that all officials engaged in the provision of fire service be able to adequately gauge their service in light of a set of "benchmarks" regarding that service and its component parts.

It also seems clear from the point of view of the citizens of a community who bear the total cost of fire—both the cost in loss of life, health, and property, and the cost in taxes for fire protection services—that the relationship of loss to expenditures for public fire protection cannot be separated. Thus, the goal of this text is: to present a means of measuring municipal fire protection, based on the total cost of fire to the community.

The key element in the above phrase is "total cost" which, for the purposes of this workbook, is defined as "the sum of expenditures for fire protection services and dollar property loss." Or, to put it another way, the total cost of fire from the point of view of a community is the sum of their actual loss and what they expend to prevent or minimize that loss.

While this "total cost" concept does not include such items as insurance premiums paid by citizens nor attempts to measure loss of life and health in dollar terms, it does put into perspective the nature of the fire problem borne by a community. It is this combination of costs, property loss, plus expenditures, that can be viewed as one indicator of the overall performance of a fire service delivery system. Of course, the reader can readily identify other costs as well, including business interruption, lost tax revenues, burn treatment, etc. The "total cost" concept used here (loss plus expenditures), however, is a first step in providing the kind of measurement benchmarks which will enable local officials to gauge fire service delivery improvements.
Every community faces these costs, but some communities are better able to reduce total costs than other communities similar to them. In this sense, the communities that do hold total costs down can be viewed as performance targets for communities that provide similar services.

The development of these targets is based on an evaluation and description of the entire range of fire prevention and fire suppression activities in a large sample of moderate-size metropolitan areas (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, or SMSAs), designed to answer the following question:
How well are the organizations of fire protection service delivery within the study universe minimizing human casualties and property losses by helping to prevent unwanted fires and to suppress uncontrolled fires in a way that losses are held to a minimum?

The study established a procedural framework that allows communities collecting data in the designated categories to compare themselves with communities of similar size.

To illustrate the conceptual framework of the process, there are three measures of input to the system, or "effort":

• fire department expenditures per capita;
• fire department expenditures less EMRS (emergency medical and rescue services) per capita;and
• fire department expenditures per $1,000 market value of the protected property.

Seven fire service effectiveness measures are identified in the study to assist in answering the question: "How well does a fire protection system minimize losses to persons and property by helping prevent fires from occurring and reducing losses from fires that occur?"

Effectiveness Measures for Fire Prevention and Suppression:

• The number of fires per 1,000 population protected.
• The dollars of property loss per capita.
• The dollars of property loss per $1,000 of market value of the property.
• The dollars of property loss per fire.
• The number of civilian injuries and deaths per 100,000 population protected.
• The number of civilian injuries and deaths per 100 fires.
• The number of firefighter injuries and deaths per 100 fires.

Following the publication of the study in 1977, no comparable national effort was made to collect new data, but many municipalities record such data for purposes of self-comparison over time. However, the concepts presented by the study and the process it used to array the data are useful. An expansion of the types of inputs (effort) and the types of effectiveness measures, in order to reflect the more recent addition of subsystems to the fire protection package, could be done and would be useful.

Productivity As System Outputs
One way of defining fire department productivity is to list all of the services provided by departments, and to establish ways of expressing attainment in each of the service areas. It is important to note that many aspects (or subsystems) of a community fire protection package (the entire system) do not involve the local fire department, or involve it in only minimal or tangential ways. For example, home fire extinguishers are a component of the total community-wide fire protection package, but unless the local department advocated their purchase in a public campaign, or trained citizens in their use, they are not part of the local department's efforts.

Departments that can generate a longer list of services provided to the community, and can document their usefulness, are increasing their productivity (outputs). If this can be done without a commensurate increase in resources, then cost effectiveness can be demonstrated as well. Using an engine company to provide first responder EMS, with a modest equipment and training expenditure, would be an example of this.

The dilemma described earlier concerning a tendency for people to judge fire department productivity by the number of fires to which the department responds can be eased by constant referrals to the full span of services provided. Steps must be taken, naturally, to augment suppression services. Fire departments that deliver only suppression services are, and will continue to be, hard pressed to address issues of productivity.

There is a danger to a continual increase in productivity without increases in resource allocations. In essence, organizations may reach a point where product quality drops and worker dissatisfaction increases because too many system outputs are expected with too few resource inputs (a real leadership and management challenge to overcome). A workable balance must be maintained, so that those who control inputs will understand that service delivery (productivity) is as high as can be obtained from the level of available resources.

Productivity As an Internal Measurement
In addition to the important consideration of department productivity as it is measured externally, there must be measurements of internal activities. The city manager, city council, taxpayers, fire board and others outside the department's day-to-day operation are most concerned with effectiveness, efficiency, and internal productivity, even when service delivery appears to be satisfactory. Department personnel must focus attention on internal operations so that service delivery and operations can become obviously productive to those outside and inside the daily operations. For example, if the dispatch operation can become faster and more precise, then internal effectiveness has increased. Eventually, a faster dispatching system should result in shorter response times, and so increased internal productivity will bring improved organizational output productivity (service delivery).

Productivity Indicators
Each service delivery item has productivity indicators of its own. The following list provides a few examples:

Fire Suppression

• fire extension after arrival;
• people rescued from buildings on fire;
• fire-loss statistics;
• amount of mutual aid requested;
• response times; and
• number of multiple alarms.

Fire Prevention

• number of actual preventable structure fires;
• dollar loss associated with various fire causes;
• number of inspections;
• number of court cases and cases won;
• number of repeat inspection call-backs; and
• number of plan faults modified.

Emergency Medical Services

• number of calls;
• number of transport jobs;
• number of heart attack victims saved;
• number of blood pressure screenings; and;
• number of high priority medical responses.

Public Education

• number of smoke detectors installed;
• number of groups receiving instruction;
• number of public service announcements;
• inches of newspaper column space;
• participation in home escape plans and drills;
• reduction in fire losses (fires, smoke detection); and
• evaluation from public.

Special Rescue

• number of calls;
• number of saves;
• number of rescue crew injuries;
• number of specialty rescue areas in which crews are trained; and
• number of applications by firefighters to be trained in special rescue skills.

The data associated with the productivity factors should be collected and reported on a regular basis. Monthly, quarterly, and annual reports provide an excellent medium to gauge trends and develop action plans to curb losses or deal with identified problems. Reports also give the outside agencies, governmental leaders, and the media an opportunity to realize the efforts and trends associated with fire department response.

Methods of Measuring Productivity
To measure productivity, departments first need to define what will be measured, determine the "benchmark" from which progress or gains will be measured, and decide how to do the measuring. This need not be an elaborate process. In a small volunteer department, for example, this might be a simple listing of how many qualified driver/pump operators there are for the new water tender at the end of one month of training. This would be a measurement of internal productivity. However, citizens might be interested in how quickly the new water tender will respond to a call. This is an external, service delivery measurement of productivity, in some cases made without a benchmark from which to judge.

In making productivity measurements, three approaches are useful. The results of measurements can be compared internally with the same measurements over time (another good reason for annual reports). The same type of measurements taken in comparable communities can be used to judge progress. The measurements also may be compared to optimal calculations established in the fire department's goals and objectives. A department can compare average response times for emergency response to times last year, to a neighboring (comparable) jurisdiction, and/or to the response time objectives set in this year's goals and objectives.

In today's economic world, governmental officials are delighted to see increases in the service package accompanied by no increases or only modest increases in the necessary resource allocation. Doing more for less is possible, but it requires innovation and creativity, plus excellent management of human resources.

Consider, for example, the City of Watsonville, California, located off of the Monterey Bay (below San Francisco). The city provides a full range of services to the community of 40,000 (police, fire, library, solid waste, sewage treatment, airport, street maintenance, etc.). The city has a $55 million budget and employs 320 full-time and 150 part-time employees. The fire department hosts the county hazardous materials response team, aggressively pursues fire prevention and public education goals, works closely with the industrial community (provides SCBA training to all industrial users for $50 per year), is involved in city risk management, manages the city's disaster planning needs, and is currently being considered for an ISO rating of 2. The fire chief also is the assistant city manager. The training/operations assistant chief manages the city's safety program and manages the day-to-day airport operations (with support from airport staff). The fire marshal (assistant chief) is also the city's building official. The company officers and firefighters have assumed a higher level of responsibility for daily management of the fire department and have a close working relationship with the chief officers. The fire department is active in city operations and supports the efforts necessary to manage the airport, building department, etc. The department also has a 30-member reserve firefighter (paid/call) program that supports fire prevention and suppression activities. There is little question from the community leadership that the fire department is staying busy providing productive services to the community. The city saves an estimated $200,000 a year from the combined effort and support provided by the fire department, while the city residents will receive the best fire insurance rates in the county. That is a good example of efficiency, a goal that more and more fire departments are achieving.

Self-Audit for Productivity Improvement
A generic "self-audit for productivity improvement efforts" has been developed by Chief Douglas T. Forsman from material produced by the National Center for Productivity and Quality of Working Life.2 Since every major item in the audit checklist involves judgments about personnel, it is a useful tool for those with responsibility for personnel management.

What are the levels of interest in productivity self-improvement?

1. Do you devote sufficient time to productivity responsibilities?

a. What percentage of time do you devote to:

• reviewing the effectiveness of programs and services?
• reviewing operational performance?
• reviewing or developing new policies and procedures?
• other productivity issues?

b. Are policy, services, and productivity improvements regularly discussed in management staff meetings?
c. Do you specifically ask subordinates to improve productivity?
d. Do you follow up?
e. Do employees generally believe that you are interested in sustained excellent service and improvements?

2. Are effectiveness, efficiency, and economy concerns reflected in clear goals and objectives?

a. Are intended results, outputs and outcomes, clear?
b. Are intermediate work or service objectives used?
c. Is economical use of scarce resources practiced?
d. Are budgeting and other management support systems oriented to the performance and improvement of services?

3. Are needs for excellence, improvement, and economy in services accepted throughout the organization?

a. Is excellence in public service recognized and respected?
b. Are economizing behaviors common and are they recognized and respected?
c. Are employees regularly involved in improvement efforts?
d. What significant improvements have been made during the past year?

What measurement and evaluation criteria are used?

1. What efficiency measures are regularly used?

a. Are work force costs, total direct unit costs, or direct and indirect costs used as measures of input?
b. What outputs are used for efficiency measures?
c. Are records of resource uses (labor, time, equipment, etc.) regularly maintained for those outputs and reported to management?
d. Are data on input/output relationships analyzed? How is the information used?

2. What effectiveness measures are used regularly?

a. What performance indicators are used in day-to-day management?
b. Do those indicators distinguish between outputs and outcomes, and do they assess both?
c. Are quality standards used, and do they include such factors as timeliness, errors, and unique services?

3. What measures are used to encourage economical use of scarce resources?

a. Are there criteria for use of such scarce resources as water, energy, equipment, buildings, land, people, money, and things of historical importance?
b. What inventory controls and management systems are employed to maximize use of resources and to minimize costs?

4. Is overall productivity assessed and reported?

a. Are combined assessments made of effectiveness, efficiency, and economy?
b. Are selective, in-depth evaluations used?
c. Are performance and evaluation reports regularly prepared and reviewed with responsible persons?

Are analysis techniques used for improvement?

1. Are methods and procedures frequently analyzed?

a. Are managers currently informed about what others are doing in services and programs similar to theirs?
b. Are new technologies regularly assessed for possible use?
c. Do employees and supervisors regularly make suggestions that are used for improvements?
d. Are staff specialists or consultants used to make improvement studies?

2. Is employee use of time and resources regularly assessed?

a. Is work distributed appropriately among employees?
b. Do employees have excessive non-productive time waiting for assignments, equipment preparation operations, and so on?
c. Do peak loads create imbalances?
d. Are scheduling and/or production control techniques and systems used?

3. Are employees motivated to perform well and help with improvements?

a. Are employees informed about organizational and individual performance?
b. Is excellence valued, identified, recognized, and rewarded?
c. Is quality of employee's work life a managerial responsibility?

4. Are outputs and intended results logical and realistic?

a. Is the relationship between outputs and intended results valid?
b. Are performance targets regularly reviewed and revised as necessary?
c. Are alternative policies and service strategies regularly considered?

Are high-potential improvement areas identified and acted on?

1. Have potential improvement targets been ranked in terms of available resources and impacts?

a. Have available resources been assessed in terms of productivity potential?
b. How are activities ranked in order of improvement potential?
c. Is selection of improvement projects based on an assessment of overall government services and needs?
d. Are the potential cost savings and improvements in services calculated before significant efforts are initiated?

2. Are problem areas periodically assessed?

a. Are obstacles to excellent performance sought out and eliminated where possible?
b. Are persistent areas of deficient performance targeted for deliberate changes?
c. Are early warning systems employed and contingency assessments made to identify and deal with potential major problems before they occur?
d. Are unsuccessful and unneeded services and programs eliminated?

3. Is excellent performance reinforced and expanded to other activities?

a. Is high performance reinforced to sustain and enhance public service?
b. Are causes for high achievement determined and are the lessons used elsewhere, as applicable?

Are staff resources available to support improvement?

1. Depending on government size, are productivity improvement functions staffed centrally and performed through general management, or supported from other sources?

a. Is expertise in performance measurement and evaluation available to help managers?
b. Is assistance in management systems and procedures available to managers?
c. Is expertise in technology utilization and capital investment available to managers?

2. Are varied expertise and disciplines among line managers utilized as staff resources?

a. Do managers share their specialized expertise as needed outside their own departments?
b. Are they asked and encouraged to do that?

3. Are central administrative staff personnel and organizations perceived positively or negatively as services, controllers, or both?

a. Do central staff personnel work well with line organizations and vice versa?
b. Are administrative staff activities evaluated similarly to line operations?
c. How do administrative staff measure up in terms of service, control, or other criteria?

4. Are training or other development opportunities for productivity improvement available to managers and employees?

a. Are exemplary practices shared for potential use by others?
b. Are practices of other jurisdictions studied through professional meetings and networks?
c. Is special productivity improvement training effectively used?

Are responsibilities for productivity improvement clearly defined?

1. Are responsibilities for productivity improvement clearly defined?

a. Are managers held accountable for sustained excellence and improvements?
b. Do managers have authority commensurate with their responsibilities?
c. Are productivity improvement efforts coordinated?

2. Are different responsibilities for effectiveness and operational efficiency separately identified or related?

a. Is responsibility for effectiveness assigned to and carried out by senior managers?
b. Is responsibility for operational efficiency and performance assigned to and carried out by line supervisors?
c. Do managers recognize and act on distinctions and interrelationships among effectiveness, efficiency, and economy?

3. Are central management responsibilities for improvement performed?

a. Are central managerial systems clearly oriented toward excellence of public service and toward cost-effectiveness?
b. Are central procedures adequate to assure that productivity improvement responsibilities are accepted and carried out?

Productivity and Resource Allocations
The revenue generated for operating fire departments has become a complex and politically power-packed issue. The American public is attempting to control the constant increases in taxes and service fees. Many statewide initiatives have reduced tax burdens effectively, yet local government still has managed to fund elaborate methods to assess service fees, cost allocation plans, and special override taxes to assure adequate amounts of income to maintain governmental services.
Fire departments have challenging competition for the revenue necessary to meet budget expenses. In most cases, fire agencies must compete with law enforcement, parks and recreation departments, social agencies, and other nonenterprise departments and agencies (such as sewer, water, solid waste, and other fee-supported services) for the revenue placed in the general fund. The general fund is developed from tax revenue, nonenterprise service fees, licenses and permit fees, and cost allocation funds (revenue generated from general fund services charged to enterprise funds). The cost of city or county management, legal services, personnel services, and auditor and financial administration also are charged to the general fund. In these days of recession there is a decline in tax revenue, building fees, sales tax, and other general fund revenue.
State and federal revenue sources are becoming even scarcer than local revenue sources. In fact, state and federal governments are reducing services (passing responsibility to local government) and taking back tax revenue once allocated to local governments.

Many fire departments have developed innovative ways to obtain new revenue. New service fees are being developed for all fire agency services (hazardous materials management and response fees, fire prevention inspection and plan check fees, etc.). Some departments have developed fire and EMS response fees. Sometimes a department will establish a two-rate system, one for residents of the district and the other (higher of course) for nonresidents. The fire service override tax for fire service response has become popular since the 1970s, although citizens must vote the new tax into existence (in most states by a two-thirds majority with a sunset clause that requires a new vote after a certain amount of time). Large development projects that require certain specifically identified fire service capital costs such as new fire equipment, fire stations, etc., often are held accountable to finance all or a major portion of the costs before development begins. Fire impact fees also are available when the local governing board approves a capital improvement plan that indicates the actual impact of new development on the need for new equipment and/or facilities. Generally, the impact fees average between 20 and 50 cents per square foot of new building.

It is time for organizational leadership to work with other local governmental agencies to determine ways of providing the level and type of services that customers (the fee and taxpaying public) appreciate and are willing to pay for. Inside operations should stress the importance of efficiency. Firefighters who use new ideas and concepts of operation that accomplish these values should be rewarded and encouraged by departmental leadership.

Information Sources For Productivity Improvement
As mentioned earlier in this unit, the monthly, quarterly, and annual departmental reports provide excellent means of tracking departmental activity. Basic data, statistics, and other descriptive material also are available from professional publications such as NFPA reports, and from the U.S. Fire Administration and its Learning Resource Center (LRC) at the National Fire Academy. There are more data available from local, state, and federal agencies than most managers will ever want to use.

Since most departments begin a productivity study by reviewing locally collected data, the following examples of local information sources are offered:3

• response statistics;
• fire incident reports;
• fire incidence statistics—location clusters, day, time, etc;
• response times;
• response by vehicle;
• response by city location;
• demographic data;
• issuance of building permits;
• issuance of developmental orders;
• building stock age;
• population density map;
• firefighter and officer leave statistics;
• crew size statistics;
• training records;
• budget data for several years;
• average age of members and retirement projections;
• personnel turnover rate;
• building inspection statistics;
• public education effort report; and
• arson statistics.

Group Work in Productivity Improvement
Since the basis for fire department productivity improvement is the employee and the team, individual and group techniques that stimulate innovation and creativity are useful tools for managers. Here are several such techniques, with a brief definition of each:

Brainstorming: A group session where individuals are encouraged to produce ideas on the given topic. A list is written on flipchart sheets. The ideas presented are not debated. Once all contributions are made and recorded, the list is reviewed, consolidated, and analyzed for workable solution paths.

Competitive Teams: Teams of involved personnel, all striving to arrive at viable decisions concerning the same issue, with some form of friendly competition built into the process.

Delphi Technique: A future-predicting technique involving a group, or groups, of randomly selected, knowledgeable people who work separately toward creative decisions.

Force Field Analysis: A technique for diagnosing situations, where "driving forces" and "restraining forces" are identified. Equilibrium results in the current level of productivity. Productivity is increased by altering the relationship between the forces.

Nominal Group Process: A variation of the Delphi Technique, where the individuals know who else is involved, but do not interact.

Quality Circle: Regularly scheduled problem identification and problem-solving meetings of those directly involved in the work.

Systems Analysis: The identification and analysis of subsystems and their interrelationships, as they make up the system as a whole.

Transactional Analysis: A way of improving communication by analyzing how people interact.

Workshop Planning Session: A problem- and solution-identification work session, similar to a quality circle session, but where an agreed-upon action plan is designed and a timeframe for action formalized.

Productivity Improvement Studies
Municipalities often use studies or "management audits" to develop recommendations for productivity improvement. Studies of fire departments, either comprehensive or specific to selected issues, can provide data and other forms of information for decision making by officials, and can assist in the identification and clarification of known and potential problems. Techniques for conducting self-studies, or for using outside expert opinion, are described in the literature,4 but a few technical terms may need clarification:

Comparative data: Information and statistics from other places that are comparable in important ways, such as size, population, demographics, housing stock, hazard analysis, terrain, weather, etc. The gathering of comparative data is a more difficult task than typically is anticipated.

Desk audits: These involve having an experienced observer/analyst literally following (or sitting at the same desk) the person whose job tasks are being analyzed. The purpose may be to rate the job for classification purposes, or to determine if there is job duplication. These audits are not done to evaluate performance.

Expert opinion: Involves the use of outside, acknowledged experts who serve as analysts and reporters, sometimes with recommendations and identification of alternative and optional solution paths.

Normative data: These are data which reflect "norms" or standards.

Overtime payment comparisons: In full-time, paid departments, especially where the replacement of retired personnel has not taken place, there frequently are overtime payments to firefighters who work extra shifts to fill in. These overtime budget allocations sometimes reach a level that indicates replacement of full-time personnel would be more economical than attempting so many fill-ins.

Staffing study: A study designed to provide locally useful information related to crew size, initial attack team size, sustained attack team size, recall procedures for off-duty personnel, and related topics. Staffing studies usually need to review station location, response time, and mutual-aid data, as well.

Statistical studies: The gathering and application of quantitative measures to provide understanding of a problem and possible solution paths.

Total Quality Programs
The concept of "total quality" has become popular in U.S. manufacturing plants over the past several years, and also in certain service businesses (e.g., engineering, architectural, and medical firms) where mistakes are costly. Total quality performance refers to the practice, or overriding goal, of meeting customer requirements, without error, on a scheduled basis. Measuring for total quality performance, referred to by some managers as "zero-defect" performance, means that every aspect of production must be measured. This extends from definition of the requirements of the job through every phase of the process, including customer or client follow-up. Obviously, a commitment to a total quality program is one of the most far-reaching decisions an organization can make.

The principles of a total quality management program include understanding and meeting the job requirements, work that is error free, management by prevention and not by correction after the fact, and measurements of productivity made by ascertaining the cost of the quality attained. The cost of not doing things right the first time can be measured and compared to the cost of a total quality organizational climate.

One American company that has served as a model for other organizations desiring a total quality program is the Corning Corporation. Employees there have developed six strategies to assist in reaching a satisfactory program and for evaluating progress.5 These strategies are:

• Provide visible, unquestioned leadership.
• Focus on customer results.
• Train all employees
• Achieve and recognize employee participation.
• Communicate about quality internally and externally.
• Provide a quality process and quality tools.

In outlining the actions it has taken to achieve its total quality goals, the Corning Corporation has listed the following:6

Commitment: A continuing personal pledge of action in support of Total Quality.

Teams: The grouping of people to manage Total Quality at each location.

Measure and Display: Measurement of error rates to focus attention on the need for corrective actions; use of charts and displays of those error rates to show progress.

Cost of Quality: Identifying the dollar cost of non-compliance to quality by quantifying the error, detection, and prevention costs.

Communication: Continuous and consistent activity to inform everyone of company and unit progress and to help spur employee involvement.

Corrective Action: Establishment of systems to identify and eliminate problems. This is the powerhouse of Total Quality; improvement suggestions from Corrective Action Teams or individuals must receive a response from management, usually within seven working days.

Recognition: Recognizing individual and group participation in, and contribution to, Total Quality performance and results.

Event: An annual gathering of employees to celebrate and recommit themselves to Total Quality.

Goals: Establishment of error-reduction goals by everyone.

Endnotes

1. Research Triangle Institute, International City Management Association and National Fire Protection Association, Municipal Fire Service Workbook. Prepared for the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977, pp. 3-4.
2. D.P. Forsman, "Resource Management." In Managing Fire Services, R.J. Coleman and J.A. Granito, eds., Washington, DC: International City Management Association, 1988, 191-193. Douglas Forsman notes: "This is adopted with major revisions from: the National Center for Productivity and Quality of Working Life, Improving Productivity: A Self-Audit and Guide for Federal Executives and Managers. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978."
3. See a much-expanded list in J.A. Granito and J. Dionne, "Evaluating Community Fire Protection." In Managing Fire Services. Washington, DC: International City Management Association, 1988, pp. 107-111.
4. Ibid.
5. D.B. Luther, "Making Quality a Competitive Strategy." A presentation to the Congressional Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology, Washington, DC, April 18, 1989.
6. Corning Corporation, "Corning Total Quality Digest." Corning, NY: Corning Corporation, undated, p. 11.

Reading Assignment:

You may want to review the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1500: Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program which identifies nationally recognized firefighter safety standards.

To Review NFPA Standards Online - follow these 2 steps:

Step 1: Basically, you can go to the following URL:http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=279&URL=Codes%20and%20Standards/
Code% 20development% 20process/Free%20online%20access
Step 2: Scroll down to bottom of page and click on Visit NFPA's Document Information page, then select the document you want to review, and then scroll down to the heading "Additional information about this document" and click on the link "Preview this document". To view the Standard, you have to use the "Table of Contents" to navigate your way around. Remember, you will only be able to preview or view the Standard, you will not be able to print, save or cut/pate, or copy.

Reading Assignment:
Read pages 245– 247 in the Edward's text. You might also want to visit the following website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen#References

Reading Assignment:
Read the Spring, 2003 article entitled "Lean Manuafacturing Processing Buzzword or Operational Lifesaver?", by Bridget Mintz Testa at http://www.buildabetterhome.org/level_b.cfm?content=pub_ewj_arch_s03_lean. You may want to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_production to learn more about the history of LEAN Manuarfacuting and its more contemporary applications.

Reading Assignment:
Visit Six Sigma website at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_production.