www.iafc.org

TOP PRIORITY: A Fire Service Guide to Interoperable Communications was published by the
International Association of Fire Chiefs through a sponsorship from Sprint Nextel.


William Pessemier, Executive Communications Systems Advisor for the International
Association of Fire Chiefs, is perhaps best known on the national level for his key 
incident command role for fire and emergency medical services during the Columbine High 
School tragedy. Chief Pessemier led the Littleton Fire Department team who made a
presentation at a special evening session on the Columbine incident at the Fire Rescue
International Conference in Kansas City immediately following the calamity. Overall
communications, interoperability of radio systems between various agencies and incident 
command were key issues in the high school tragedy. Pessemier was appointed by
the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the America Burning
Recommissioned panel. 

Prior to becoming fire chief in Littleton in 1998, Pessemier was fire chief in Urbana, 
Illinois and assistant fire chief in Lynnwood, Washington. His career as a fire fighter 
began in 1979 in Kent and then later Bellevue, Washington. 

Pessemiers education includes a Master of Public Administration degree from the University 
of Illinois, Bachelor of Science in Fire Services Administration with a Minor in Psychology 
from Western Oregon State College, and courses at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, 
Maryland, in Executive Leadership, Executive Development, Fire ServiceCourse Development, 
Fire Service Instructional Methodology, and Hazardous Material Tactical Considerations. 
Pessemier has been a Visiting Associate Professor, at Southern Illinois University at 
Carbondale and Affiliate Faculty at Colorado State University. He recently retired as chief 
of the Littleton (Colo.) Fire Department. He is currently pursuing a doctorate in public affairs 
from the University of Colorado at Denver. 

Please contact Pessemier at bpessemier@iafc.org or 571-237-7353 with questions,
comments or ideas to improve interoperability within the fire service. 

TOP PRIORITY: A Fire Service Guide to Interoperable Communications was published by the
International Association of Fire Chiefs through a sponsorship from Sprint Nextel.

 2006, The International Association of Fire Chiefs.
IAFC, 4025 Fair Ridge Drive, Fairfax, VA 22033, 703-273-0911, www.iafc.org.


TOP PRIORITY: A Fire Service Guide To Interoperable Communications 
Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 

Contextof Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 
Interoperable Communications Defined . . . . . . . . . . . .4 
Operational Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 
Technical Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 

Principles of Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 
Operational Needs . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .5 
Regionalized Planning and Implementation . . . . . . . . . .5 
Leadership Commitment to Regional/Joint .

Operations Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .5 
Funding and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .5 
Accept the 80% Solution . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .6 
Leveraging Commercial Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 

Challenges to Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 
Cultural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 
Technological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .7 
Financial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .8 
Impact of Limited Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 
Impact of Improved Interoperability . . . . . . . . .  . . .9 

Measuring Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 
Operational Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 
Technical Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 
Interoperability on Individual 

Communications Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 

Training and Evaluation . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .14 

Emergency Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 

Current Communications Systems and Operations . . . . . . ..17 

Land Mobile Radio Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 

Commercial Communications Systems 
and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 

Handsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 
Paging/Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 
Console Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .21 
GPS Location and Tracking . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .  . .22 
Interoperability Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 
Database Access/Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 
Patient Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 
Emergency Response Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 

Solutions and Recommendations:
Establishing Interoperable Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 

Operational Interoperability Strategies . . . . . . . . .  .26 
Technical Interoperability Strategies . . . . . . . . .  . .28 
Action Steps to Implement Interoperable 

Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 
Steps to Create Regional Interoperability . . . . . . .. . .30 

Making Interoperability a Reality . . . . . . . . . .  . . .31 

Case Studies: Real World Examples ofInteroperable 
Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 

Charlottesville Fire Department . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .32 
Anaheim Fire Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . .34 
Clayton Fire Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . .35 
The 3 Cs . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 

List of Figures

Figure 1: Interoperability Systems Planning 
Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 
Figure 2: Interoperability Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . .11 
Figure 3: Individual Communications Systems 
Evaluation Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .12 
Figure 4: Communications Interoperability 
Evaluation Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . .13 
Figure 5:EOC Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .15 
Figure 6: Transferring Incident Management 
to EOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 
Figure 7: PSAP/EOC Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .16 
Figure 8: Communications Planning 
by Functional Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . .19 
Figure 9: Communications Planning by 
Mission Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .21

TOP PRIORITY: A Fire Service Guide To Interoperable Communications 

The purpose of the handbook is to provide fire and emergency
services with a comprehensive understanding of interoperability.
This understanding, in turn, can form the foundation for increasing
the effectiveness of emergency response services and improving
the safety of emergency response personnel. Although written
from a fire-service perspective, the handbook can be used by fire
departments, emergency medical services, law enforcement agencies
and emergency managers.

Information is powerful in its ability
to change perspectives. This handbook
can change the perspective of
fire and emergency services regarding
the importance and value of interoperability.
It can also change the perspective
of those who control local
resources so that interoperability
becomes a higher priority for local
funding. If we are to realize the full
potential of interoperability, fire and 
mergency services must
decide to make interoperability a higher 
priority, and then establish
an action plan to achieve it.

Many reports have been published supporting interoperability;
unfortunately, most of them have been largely ignored. Interoperability
is viewed by many as desirable but not essential. This
view can no longer be supported. Although interoperability is a
critical issue affecting the ability to deliver emergency services, it
continues to be an elusive goal for most fire and emergency medical
services organizations. Communications problems and the
inability to coordinate with other disciplines and jurisdictions
have been recognized as major operational limitations in every
major incident, from the shootings at Columbine High School
to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

The 9/11 Commission Report is the latest in a long line of afteraction
reports that identified interoperability issues as a major
factor limiting the effectiveness of emergency operations. Interoperability
clearly impacts command and control, situational
awareness and resource management. For example, the 9/11
Commission Report clearly stated that command and control
decisions were affected by the lack of knowledge. Further, the
means of transmitting information were unreliable and the
ability to track which units were operating where was limited. In
fact, almost all aspects of communications continued to be problematic,
from initial notification to tactical operations. Key decision
makers had almost no information about the situation and
any attempt to establish a unified command on 9/11 would have
been further frustrated by the lack of communication and coordination
among responding agencies. Finally, the Incident
Command System did not function to
integrate awareness among agencies or
to facilitate interagency response.

These may appear to be harsh comments
after the heroic efforts of the
fire, law enforcement and medical
personnel who responded to the
attack, particularly considering the
staggering number of deaths of public
safety personnel. However, the lesson
to learn is that these issues were a
problem before the 9/11 attacks, and continue to be a problem
today in most communities around the United States. Despite
numerous after-action reports, public safety services have yet to
make significant progress in comprehensively addressing interoperability.

Interoperability is important because it dramatically improves
operational effectiveness and personnel safety. Whether an
emergency response involves the fire and police departments
from a single city, or the regional response of numerous fire,
emergency medical and law enforcement personnel and equipment
to a terrorist attack, the ability to establish a common operating
picture, make rapid decisions and take effective action
using a mix of public safety services can only be achieved through
interoperability. Interoperability is essential to operability. Public
safety services cannot operate effectively without the ability to
share information and resources with other disciplines and jurisdictions.
This handbook provides a common operational definition of
interoperability, discusses the foundation for interoperable communications,
and provides direction to establish interoperability
between and among public safety services, including fire, emergency
medical and law enforcement organizations.

The Context of Interoperability

Strategic Perspectives
Interoperability addresses several important strategic issues. The
process of planning and implementing operational and technical
interoperability improvements has the potential to build relationships
on a regional basis. Interoperability planning can bring
people from various disciplines or jurisdictions together that otherwise
may not know each other or who may not understand
each others operations. When people get to know each other
better, and have a better understanding of what they do, they are
more likely to be able to work together.

Interoperability improves regional response capability. This is
true not only for special operations, but for day-to-day operations
as well. The impact of interoperability on normal operations
is arguably the most important and valuable reason for
making the effort to improve operational and technical interoperability.
Interoperability should be scalable to match the operational
and tactical needs of the event. The systems and
procedures that are used on a regular basis must be able to be
scaled up to work with increasing levels of complexity as the need
for interoperability between increasing numbers of response
agencies and their respective resources. Emergency response
personnel, from firefighters and police officers to command officers,
must use interoperable systems and related equipment on a
regular basis, during the daily routine of their work, so that they
are familiar with the technical and operational capability of their
equipment and can quickly and easily scale up to match their
capability with the level of complexity of the incident.
Interoperability also has the potential to reduce unnecessary
redundancy and to thereby reduce expenditures. A regional
planning approach has the ability to reduce the need for additional
equipment and expenditures to connect disparate communications
systems. Regional planning may also reduce the
number of additional radios that must be purchased in order for
one jurisdiction to be able to talk to another.

Operational and Tactical Perspectives
The operational and technical aspects of interoperability provide
a rational basis for assessing how public safety services can best
accomplish their mission with available resources. Examining
the status of operational interoperability (how disciplines and
jurisdictions work together) provides the opportunity to make
improvements in the effectiveness of joint operations and ultimately
in your ability to provide emergency services for the public.
Interoperability also maximizes resource management by
increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of response resources.
Both physical and information resources are used more effectively
with higher levels of interoperability. In addition, the flexibility
of operational resources is increased. Resources that have a
high level of interoperability also have a high level of interchangeability,
which increases operational flexibility and the
capacity to respond to changing conditions over the course of an
incident.

In addition to improvements in resource management, one of the
most important operational improvements that results from
interoperability is an increased level of situational awareness. A
common operational picture of an incident is critical to operational
planning and decision making. If firefighters have one
picture of what is happening at an event, and law enforcement
has a different picture of the same event, and the information
cannot be exchanged between the two disciplines, then operational
effectiveness will be reduced and personnel safety will be
jeopardized.

Technological Perspectives
Technical capabilities and limitations of communications systems
must be clearly described so that the capabilities and limitations
of interoperability are recognized. This helps to establish
realistic expectations of what technology can accomplish. In
addition, a detailed description of technical systems provides the
basis for establishing the linkages and interfaces between systems
for the exchange of information. For example, after a review of
communications systems between a fire department, police
department, and a third service EMS provider, it may be determined
that each has a separate system with no connections for
allowing the exchange of voice or data information. However, all
three services use cell phones. It may be possible to link the three
services with a cellular service that provides an 800 MHz trunked
radio system in addition to their regular cellular phone service,
such as the Nextel Radio Service capability. In addition,
technology makes it possible to integrate the Nextel Radio Service
capability with each of the various radio systems used by
these disciplines through console integration equipment. This
type of technology provides for technical and operational interoperability
with very little if any additional expense, and also provides
a supplemental or secondary communications system in the
event that the primary LMR system fails. In addition, a technological
solution such as this provides the ability to offload nonessential
communications from the primary communications
system onto the secondary system.

Interoperable Communications Defined

Interoperability is widely viewed as the solution to communications
problems between and among public safety services. It has
been narrowly defined as the ability of public safety services to
talk to each other or to share data when necessary. While technological
advances have made it possible to establish interoperability,
it has not been achieved in most communities throughout
the United States. Why? Because interoperability involves the
ability to work together first, and the
ability to talk to each other second.

Operational Interoperability
Operational interoperability is the
ability to work together effectively.
Specifically, it is the ability of different
jurisdictions or disciplines to provide
services to and accept services from
other jurisdictions or disciplines, and
to use those services to operate more
effectively together at an emergency.
From a practical perspective, operational
interoperability means that
personnel from different jurisdictions
or services perform as a team under
a common command-and-control
structure.To do this, they must be able to communicate horizontally
with other response resources, and vertically with appropriate
command staff. In the fire service, automatic and mutual aid
agreements help to share response resources. Yet many jurisdictions
do not operate effectively together because of isolated communications
systems or differences in operational practices, or
more subtle and difficult cultural issues, such as territorialism,
competition, and an attitude of self-sufficiency.
These obstacles to operational interoperability have limited the
extent to which the fire service has utilized advances in technical
interoperability, thereby reducing the effectiveness of response
resources and jeopardizing the safety of emergency response personnel.
If public safety services are to achieve interoperability, the
obstacles to operational interoperability
must be made explicit so that they
can be overcome.

Technical Interoperability
Technical interoperability is the ability
to communicate and exchange information.
More formally, it can be
defined as the ability of systems to
provide dynamic interactive information
and data exchange among command,
control and communications
elements for planning, coordinating,
integrating and executing response
operations. The most common
systems used by public safety services
involve voice and data information
exchange, which is usually accomplished by Land Mobile Radio
communications systems. Pagers, telephones and cellular phone
systems are also commonly used to exchange information. Technical
interoperability is essential for operational interoperability.
Technical systems must be able to reliably allow exchanging
essential voice and data information that is accurate, timely, relevant
and operationally useful.

SAFECOM defines interoperability
as the ability of public safety
and support providerslaw
enforcement, firefighters, EMS,
emergency management, public
utilities, transportation, health,
medical and othersto exchange
voice and data communications
on demand, in real time and
when authorized.

Principles of Interoperability

If interoperability is to be implemented between and among
public safety services, a number of decision-making principles
must be accepted. The guiding principles presented here provide
the foundation to build operational and technical interoperable
communications systems.

Operational Needs
Tactical-level operations between and
among public safety services must be
the starting point for examining what
type and how much interoperability is
required. The ability to deliver joint,
flexible, coherent and coordinated
operations between several different
fire departments, or between a fire
department, police department and
emergency medical service, must be
anticipated in terms of:
 Who responds to what type of incident?
 What is their tactical objective and task?
 Where do they fit into the command structure of the
incident?
 What information-exchange requirements exist between
different response resources and between response resources
and command staff?
 How will these information exchanges be accomplished?
How units operate together determines the type and frequency
of information exchanges and what technical systems are used to
exchange voice and data information.

Regionalized Planning and Implementation
Because interoperability is all about the ability of different disciplines
or jurisdictions to work together and talk to each other,
interoperability planning begins by determining which disciplines
and jurisdictions should be included in the planning process. Disciplines
that work together on a daily or weekly basis should be
clearly included in a regional interoperability planning group.
Once the planning group has been established, its members
should examine public safety operations. Include a detailed
description of current operational and technical interoperability
levels, as well as the desired levels. The difference between the
current and desired level of interoperability is the performance
gap for operational and technical interoperability. This becomes
the starting point for prioritizing issues.
The next phase is to make the best use of currently available
resources. If additional funding is required to implement the
improvements recommended by the planning group, local decision
makers are more likely to support the joint recommendations
of public safety services on a
regional basis. Competitive grants are
also rated higher when they include
regions instead of single jurisdictions.
In addition, the economies of scale
available on a regional basis make
regional programs more cost-effective.
When the public is aware of efforts to
improve the ability of public safety
services to work together and talk to
each other, it is easier to gain support
for interoperability initiatives.

Leadership Commitment to Regional/Joint
Operations Strategy
The leadership of every public safety service must support the
need for operational and technical interoperability on a regional
basis. Some may resist the idea of working together with other
fire department or law enforcement agencies. The imperative to
improve operational effectiveness and personnel safety must take
precedence over the historical problems of territorialism and
competition, and the myth of self-sufficiency. Develop a common
voice to facilitate budget and policy decisions. In addition,
find ways to reward interoperability, and provide sanctions for
those who ignore it or stand in the way.
Look beyond your department for support. State and local government
officials should be brought on board. Provide information
so that government officials understand the importance of
interoperability, and help them to communicate the benefits of
interoperability to the public. Find out what political and institutional
barriers within the community may impede interoperability,
and facilitate collaborative planning among local, state
and federal agencies.

Funding and Resources
A lack of resources or funding is the most common obstacle to
improving the interoperability of communications systems. That
is why state and federal agencies have developed numerous grant
programs to assist in the area.

Public safety operations require
effective command, control,
communications and information
sharing in order to mount well
coordinated responses.

For information on grants, go to www.FedGrants.gov,
www.ojp.usdoj.gov, www.firegrantsupport.com, www.cfda.gov,
www.wifcon.com/todaysfa.htm, and www.Grants.gov. Grant
workshops are available at conferences and regionally through
specific DHS programs. The number one reason fire departments
do not get grant funds is that they do not apply.

To improve your case for funding,
look for partnerships to expand the
systems impact. Reallocating
resources within a departments budget
is a practical and legitimate means
of improving interoperability by funding
technical and operational solutions.
We can no longer afford to
ignore interoperability, or to view it as
a secondary budget item to be funded
only if extra money becomes available.
Interoperability is essential to effective
emergency response operations in
every community, and increases the safety and survival of every
emergency responder.

New technologies integrate systems so that the money you spend
on many devices can be combined into one device. For example,
an advantage to using Nextel handsets as a parallel system to a
fire service communications system is the consolidation of equipment.
The push-to-talk capability included in Nextel handsets
can function as a secondary 800 megahertz (MHz) trunked radio
system (radio functionality), send and receive messages (pager
functionality), are GPS-enabled (Automatic Vehicle Location
(AVL) functionality), and also function as a cellular phone (cellular
functionality). The radio function of this commercial system
can be integrated into almost any departments land mobile radio
console, thus providing a highly functional secondary or parallel
interoperable communication system at a relatively low cost.
The ability to consolidate functions into one device has the
potential for significant cost savings, improved operational utility,
and a more effective operation. Personnel in non-life-threatening
positions can utilize devices with enhanced features at a
fraction of the cost of a $3,000 portable radio with limited features.
Rather than having to learn to operate several different
devices, personnel only need to be trained on one device.

Accept the 80% Solution
Public safety organizations have high standards for personnel
and equipment. In many cases, the ability to establish improved
interoperability has been stalled because it has not been possible
to identify a solution that meets the high standards of public
safety. In some cases, it may be prudent to accept a solution that
is less than ideal so that interoperability is improved in the short
term. For example, if a solution can be
found that increased interoperability
from 40% to 80%, that is a 100%
increase in capacity. The solution may
not be perfect, but it represents a substantial
improvement. Add to this
increased capacity the fact that new
technologies provide many other nonmission-
critical features that enhance
public safety operations, such as computer-
aided dispatch (CAD) alerts to
wireless devices, internet access, GPS
and more. This increased capacity
gives you a solution that is worth considering.

Leveraging Commercial Technology
The reluctance of many public safety services to use commercial
systems may be based on the long history of private ownership of
communications systems, and the need for redundancy and reliability.
However, the reliability and redundancy of commercial
systems has improved greatly, and can be further increased to
meet the needs of public safety. Commercial providers have partnered
with public safety services to accomplish this goal. For
example, Sprint together with Nextel has worked with several
public safety services to install back-up generators at cellular
phone sites to improve the reliability of their communications
system. These efforts can be further enhanced through publicprivate
partnerships between vendors and local governments.
Commercial systems provide a relatively inexpensive and immediately
available solution to technical interoperability problems.
When working with commercial vendors, specific capabilities
and requirements must be clearly identified, such as the requirement
for reliability or the technical capability of a system to provide
service. For example, specifications for a cellular phone
service may include the requirement that the system not fail if
the normal power system is rendered inoperable, and that the
system provide service to at least 95% of the coverage area.
Many of the capabilities and goals
of interoperability can be realized
through shifts in resources and
changes in priorities and training
rather than through acquiring
new technology.

Challenges to Interoperability

Information management must become a first-line response function.

Achieving optimum interoperable communications requires that
organizations and agencies throughout the public sector overcome
the many challenges that surround interoperabilitycultural,
technical and financial.
Cultural
Public safety services share boundaries and compete for resources
with other public safety disciplines
and jurisdictions. As with any network
of organizations operating in this context,
territorialism and competition
can be expected. Public safety personnel
have a great deal of pride in their
departments and do not want to have
to rely on others to fulfill their mission.
They want to be self-sufficient
and have the political, social and financial support necessary to
provide the level of services that the public needs and expects.
They may think that the need to rely on other jurisdictions or
disciplines indicates a lack of community support or limited
organizational capability.

Although tremendous progress has been made to increase cooperation
among emergency services, some personnel still resist
working with other organizations and see such cooperation as a
threat to their job security or pride in their department. Every
emergency service organization has members who can still be
heard to say things like, This is our area. We dont need those
guys coming in here. We can take care of our own area.
Although the concern for job security may be legitimate, allowing
these concerns to limit the ability to provide effective emergency
services is not acceptable. An attitude of territorialism,
competition and self-sufficiency not only limits the ability to
provide emergency services, but also unnecessarily places emergency
responders and the public at risk.

Departments may wait too long to call for help at emergencies
because they think they can handle the event on their own.
Delays in resource acquisition and deployment seriously limit
operational effectiveness, and put response personnel at risk. For
example, the ability to sustain interior attack lines or deploy rapid
intervention teams may depend on early requests for additional
resources. If departments continue to use territorialism, competition
and self-sufficiency as excuses to avoid working together in
a more planned, coherent and coordinated manner, the public
will eventually withdraw support for emergency services. Recent
town hall meetings conducted by the Council on Excellence in
Government clearly showed that the public wants and expects
their public safety services to be able to work together in the best
interests of the community they serve. To accomplish this goal,
operational interoperability must be an essential factor in service
delivery and personnel safety. Only after operational interoperability
is accepted and fully supported by emergency services will
we be able to implement and sustain solutions to the problem of
technical interoperability.

Technological
It is not uncommon for the fire service
to do something because we have
always done it that way. As a whole,
the fire service has used little currently
available technology. The fire service
may find it difficult to think of
ways to use new technology, or we
may not see the need or feel the sense
of urgency necessary to drive
improvements in interoperability.

Innovation and experimentation must become an inherent function
of emergency service organizations. Every public safety
service has one or more individuals who are fascinated by technology
and capable of finding new ways to make it work to
improve services and increase the safety of personnel. The fire
service as a whole can learn from the experiments and innovation
of other fire departments as well as other disciplines, such as law
enforcement Department of Defense, private industries and
mining operations. Innovation and experimentation must be
supported with research and development resources, and through
encouragement and leadership of staff officers. It should be
understood that innovation and experimentation sometimes
leads to failures, and that those failures can provide tremendous
insight into other workable solutions.

Ideally, this handbook will create a greater awareness about the
potential of interoperability to improve service delivery and
increase personnel safety. The perspective and context presented
here can create the foundation of greater innovation and experimentation
using the technology that will be discussed in the section
on technical systems. First responders are pragmatic and
practical when given the resources and support necessary to find
solutions to problems.To make the best use of current and future
technology, we must be able to support creative and innovative
solutions to interoperability problems and think outside of our
usual comfort zone.

Many of public safetys current communications and information
systems are outdated. These legacy systems present a serious
obstacle to technical interoperability. The sunk costs of these systems
represent a major financial limitation; replacing them with
modern systems is usually expensive. The short-term solution is
to make the best use of current available systems, enhance communications
with commercial off-the-shelf equipment, and
develop a regional plan to replace or upgrade legacy systems.
Given the speed at which technology changes, it may be practical
to develop a relatively short-range plan, extending out no
more than three to five years.

Do not use the existence of legacy systems
as an excuse for not implementing
interoperable communications.
When purchased and used regionally,
much commercial off-the-shelf
equipment can greatly enhance the
effectiveness of public safety communications
at relatively low cost. The
cost-effectiveness and operational
impact of regional interoperability
planning has the highest potential to
overcome many of the limitations of
legacy systems.

Financial
The common refrain heard when most emergency services talk
about interoperability is, We cant afford it. Yet almost every
operation involving the fire service, and other emergency services,
requires some level of interoperability. A house fire requires
the response of the police to control traffic, public utilities to shut
off power and gas, other jurisdictions to provide on-scene help or
coverage, emergency medical services to treat and transport the
injured, and the Salvation Army or Red Cross to provide support
services. Interoperability is essential to our ability to provide
effective emergency response services. Therefore, issues of operational
and technical interoperability should receive a level of
support commensurate with its priority as an essential element of
emergency service.

Interoperability is not a new issue for emergency service organizations.
Yet we talk about it as if it were an unfunded mandate
that has suddenly appeared. Several issues have created this situation.
In some cases, the continued decline in support and funding
for emergency services has forced more operational
interoperability to sustain service levels. On a national scale, the
essential nature of interoperability is more apparent as a result of
terrorist attacks requiring unanticipated levels of cooperation and
coordination. We now recognize that a lack of interoperability
limits the effectiveness of these operations and jeopardizes the
safety and survival of emergency responders. Interoperability
should not be viewed as something we would like to have if we
only had the money. Operational and technical interoperability
are essential to emergency response services, and should be given
the same priority in terms of resources. The federal government
supports developing interoperable communications by including
this effort in numerous grant programs. Given previous catastrophic
events, public safety planners must understand the cost,
impact and liability of not being able
to achieve interoperable communications.

Impact of Limited
Interoperability
Limited interoperability reduces the
ability of emergency services to
accomplish our mission, increases the
risk to emergency responders, and
creates the perception that some
organizations are more interested in
protectionism than professionalism.
More specifically, limited interoperability decreases the effectiveness
of resources and limits the ability to form a common operational
view of the incident. Compared to resources deployed under
operational and technical interoperability, resources deployed with
limited interoperability have the following limitations:
 Decreased ability to coordinate operational tasks with other
jurisdictions or disciplines at a peer-to-peer level while
responding to and operating at the scene of an emergency.
 Decreased ability to coordinate operations with commanders
and make decisions in the field.
 Emergency response personnel must resort to ad-hoc
workarounds to accomplish operational tasks in cooperation
with other jurisdictions or disciplines. This situation can
lead to increased freelancing, which jeopardizes personnel
safety and reduces the ability to maintain operational command
and control.
 Delays in completing tactical objectives and tasks owing to
unfamiliarity with the operations and procedures of other
disciplines and jurisdictions or the inability to communicate
during integrated operations.
 The reaction or cycle time required to complete assigned
tactical objectives is increased owing to delays in communication
between commanders and resources.

Most public safety communications
systems are like stovepipes
individual systems that are
fragmented and do not
communicate with one another
to facilitate operational
interoperability.

 Commanders take longer to make decisions and are less
confident in the incident action plan owing to incomplete,
inaccurate, conflicting and ambiguous information.
 Different disciplines or jurisdictions operating at the scene
of an emergency are not able to share mission-critical information
about the incident owing to intermittent or missing
communications links.
The fire service must put aside concerns
about protecting turf, and refocus
efforts on protecting the public
and personnel. Fire and emergency
service professionals, whether volunteer
or paid, have a responsibility to
the public and to ourselves to work
together to provide the best service to
the public while protecting the safety
of our people. Building interoperability can accomplish both of
these goals.

Impact of Improved Interoperability
Interoperability improves the effectiveness of resource management
through the command structure of the incident. Communications
systems allow information to be exchanged, thereby
establishing a common operational picture of an incident. Command,
control and communications are the means through
which resource management is made more effective and situational
awareness is increased. The operational impact of better
command, control and communications, or increased operational
and technical interoperability, includes the following:
 Makes a smaller force more effective
by leveraging assets.
 Provides for faster planning and
execution; better and faster decisions.
 Resources become more effective
through better peer-to-peer coordination,
which facilitates flexible
and autonomous action.
 Minimizes ad-hoc workarounds
and freelancing.
 More rapid, coherent and coordinated operations.
 Increases situational awareness through a common operational
picture.
 More effective resource management through more effective
command and control.

Exchanging information through
communication systems is critical
to decision making and safety.

Measuring Interoperability

Measuring interoperability is difficult because it crosses so many
technical and operational issues. Some form of measurement criteria
must be established for emergency services to develop goals
and measure progress. Because objective and quantitative measures
of interoperability are difficult to define, it is necessary to use
qualitative, subjective and implied judgments about how well a
department is doing.

The interoperability planning matrix presented in Figure 1 provides
a method of assessing interoperability. Measures of operational
interoperability include the criteria listed in the section on
incident management, resource management, and situational
awareness. Measures of technical interoperability include the criteria
listed in the section on individual communications systems
and interoperability of individual communications systems.

Operational Interoperability
Operational Criteria (OC) for evaluating ICS include:
OC1: Whether the command and control structure/organization
is based on National Incident Management System
(NIMS)
OC2: The extent to which the command and control structure
is appropriate for a given incident.
OC3: The degree to which command and control is integrated
or unified with other emergency response services.

Operational Criteria (OC) for evaluating resource management
include:
OC4: Planning (integrated operations or coordinated partitioning).
OC5: Information acquisition, assessment, course of action
development, decision-making, direction of resources.
OC6: Clarity of direction.
OC7: Progress and situational reports.
OC8: Cycle time of operations; task assigned, initiation, completion,
report.

Operational Criteria (OC) for evaluating situational
awareness include:
OC9: Percentage of response resources, command staff, agencies
involved in response that share a single, integrated
operational picture of the incident.
OC10:Ability to share information about changes in the incident
in a timely manner.
OC11:Ability to distribute critical information to response
resources.
See Figure 1 for an example of an interoperability planning
worksheet.

Figure 1: Interoperability Systems Planning Matrix

Single Discipline, Single Jurisdiction:
Operational
Interoperability
OC1  OC11
Technical
Interoperability
TC1  TC15

Single Discipline, Multiple Jurisdiction:
Operational
Interoperability
OC1  OC11
Technical
Interoperability
TC1  TC15

Multiple Discipline, Single Jurisdiction
Operational
Interoperability
OC1  OC11
Technical
Interoperability
TC1  TC15

Multiple Discipline, Multiple Jurisdiction:
Operational
Interoperability
OC1  OC11
Technical
Interoperability
TC1  TC15

SAFECOM is a federal entity that was established to help local, tribal, state, and 
federal public safety agencies improve public safety response throughmore 
effective and efficient interoperable wireless communications. SAFECOM is the 
first national program designed by public safety for public safety.  As a public 
safety practitioner driven program, SAFECOM is working with existing federal 
communications initiatives and key public safety stakeholders to address the 
need to develop better technologies and processes for the cross-jurisdictional 
and cross-disciplinary coordination of existing systems and future networks. 
SAFECOM harnesses diverse federal resources in service of the public safety 
community. The scope of this community is broad. The customer base includes 
over 50,000 local and state public safety agencies and organizations. Federal 
customers include over 100 agencies engaged in public safety disciplines such 
as law enforcement, firefighting, public health and disaster recovery. SAFECOM 
makes it possible for the public safety community to leverage resources by 
promoting coordination and cooperation across all levels of government. For 
more information on SAFECOM go to www.safecomprogram.gov or call 1-866-
969-SAFE.

SAFECOM has developed a tool that can be used to measure
and compare core facets of interoperability along a continuum of
five critical issues. These include frequency of use, governance,
standard operating procedures, technology, training and exercises
(see Figure 2). The interoperability continuum provides a
means of comparing the current state of interoperability
elements with the future desired state.
An assessment of these criteria can be used as a baseline for evaluating
the level of overall interoperability and planning. Operational
interoperability should measure the degree to which
response resources can be shared between jurisdictions and disciplines,
and how effectively these resources are able to work
together in joint response operations. Technical interoperability
should measure the ability to exchange information (voice and
data) between response resources and among command and control
elements of the operation. Once the level of interoperability
has been evaluated, planning should begin by prioritizing which
systems are most important to operational effectiveness and personnel
safety. These are the systems that should receive the most
attention initially.

Figure 2: Interoperability continuum
Continuum between optimal and minimal level of interoperability

Technical Interoperability
Individual Communications System Performance
Technical Criteria (TC) for grading scale for individual communications
systems include:
TC1: Coverage.
TC2: Capacity/channel loading.
TC3: Reliability.
TC4: Redundancy.
TC5: Training.
TC6: Standard operating procedures.

Figure 3: Individual Communications Systems Evaluation Matrix

Fire Communications System
(System 1)
TC1  TC6
Police
Communications System
(System 2)
TC1  TC6
EMS
Communications System
(System 3)
TC1  TC6
Hospital
Communications System
(System 4)
TC1  TC6
Public Works
Communications System
(System 5)
TC1  TC6
EOC
Communications System
(System 6)
TC1  TC6

Interoperability of Individual Communications Systems

Criteria for grading scale for the interoperability of communications
systems include:
TC7: Operational planning; information/capabilities/service
exchange requirements.
TC8: Technical planning; compliance with established rules
and guidelines for interoperability.
TC9: Systems planning; interface points and connections
between systems.
TC10: Training.
TC11: Standard operating procedures.
TC12: Pre-established radio nets, frequency assignments, talk
groups (command, tactical, support, EMS, law enforcement,
public works).
TC13: Capacity/scalability.
TC14: Redundancy.
TC15: Extent of interoperability; local, regional, state, federal.
See Figure 4 for an example of performance evaluation worksheet.

Figure 4: Communications Interoperability Evaluation Matrix

      System 2 System 3 System 4 System 5 System 6
System 1 TC7  TC15 TC7  TC15 TC7  TC15 TC7  TC15 TC7  TC15
System 2 TC7  TC15 TC7  TC15 TC7  TC15 TC7  TC15
System 3 TC7  TC15 TC7  TC15 TC7  TC15
System 4 TC7  TC15 TC7  TC15
System 5 TC7  TC15

Training and Evaluation

Frequent and realistic joint
exercises are necessary to
identify interoperability
shortfalls and obstacles to
interoperability that would
otherwise remain hidden.

If an interoperability systems plan is adopted and published, but
then sits on the shelf in the office, it is useless. Make a plan come
to life by practicing the operational procedures established in the
plan.Training based on the doctrine of operational interoperability
increases the confidence and competence of the participating
members, particularly in the members of other organizations.

Training programs are necessary to
evaluate, support and improve operational
and technical interoperability,
especially those involving multiple disciples
or jurisdictions. Training should
support operational needs, methods
and procedures, as well as a regional
approach to interoperability. When
multiple jurisdictions and disciplines
are required to work together but have
not trained together, the result is confusion,
operational conflict, limited
situational awareness, decision making
based on limited information, and uncoordinated resource management.
When multiple jurisdictions and disciplines train
together, the result is a coordinated and effective operation and a
higher level of personnel safety.

Evaluations, after-action reports, and critiques of training sessions
or actual operations have a history of being less than completely
honest about the shortcomings of systems, procedures,
decisions, and actions of crews and individual personnel. Training
and evaluation must be frequent, realistic, and objective to
provide constructive criticism. Training tests the ability of public
safety services to work together and exchange information across
a wide variety of operational scenarios. After each training session,
be explicit about specific issues relating to operational and
technical interoperability to foster improvements.

Joint training provides the best opportunity for experimentation
and innovation.Training exercises can also be used to help develop
key performance parameters for tactical operations. These
parameters are based on the mission-essential tasks, such as
search and rescue, getting water on the fire, ventilation, forcible
entry, and water supply. Use the parameters to measure the performance
of the mission-essential tasks, which in turn help you
gauge the effect of interoperability. For example, the performance
of the mission-essential tasks of search and rescue for a
three-story apartment building might be measured by the following
parameters:

1.Time from dispatch of units to completion of primary
search.
2.Time from dispatch of units to completion of secondary
search.

The key performance parameters for the mission-essential task
of search and rescue in a three-story apartment building can then
be measured during operations without
interoperability and compared to
operations with interoperability. The
time required to complete the primary
and secondary search is substantially
longer when units are unable to share
information and effectively manage
response resources.
Operational interoperability training
should be dynamic, capabilities-based
and constructive. By working together,
jurisdictions and disciplines can
respond to changing conditions and unpredictable events. The
ability to adapt and respond quickly to such changes is an essential
component of operational readiness. Joint training identifies
the capabilities required by jurisdictions and disciplines to effectively
respond to emergencies. Develop regional joint training
exercises, or utilize commercial training exercises that support
interoperable communications.

Constructively but critically evaluate training exercises. Objectively
describe and analyze the course of action taken during the
training, and systematically measure the performance of each
crew and individual to improve operational effectiveness. Questions
that should be answered include:
 What did we have?
 Who was there?
 What did we do?
 How effective were we?
 How can we improve?
It is critically important not to distort the answers to these questions
just to keep feelings from being hurt.We often dont want
to say anything critical of our fellow public safety professionals,
but the ability to improve our operational capabilities depends on
honestly assessing capabilities, practices and performance.

Emergency Management
T O P P R I O R I T Y : A Fire Service Guide To Interoperable 
Communications
1 5
When an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is activated,
two of the primary roles of emergency management are to manage
resources responding from outside the local area, and to
develop a comprehensive awareness of the emergency situation.
Resource management and situational awareness are two critical
capabilities for an EOC. These capabilities are identical to those
required for normal operations, only on a larger scale. Just as
communications nets are required to manage resources and
maintain situational awareness during the course of normal, dayto-
day operations, such networks are critical for the effective
management of large scale emergencies requiring the activation
of the local EOC.

After the initial activation of an EOC, resources at the local level
are managed by the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP).
Depending on the nature and extent of the emergency, regional,
state and federal resources are usually managed through the
EOC (see Figure 5). As resources respond to the event, they
must know how to contact the EOC in order to receive direction
and information. Resources must be assigned to base or staging
areas or may be assigned directly to incident operations.
The local PSAP must have the ability to communicate with the
EOC in order to coordinate resource management and to
exchange information about the event in order to maintain a common
operational picture of what is happening. In fact, the EOC
may need to coordinate and communicate with multiple PSAPs
or communications centers, such as separate fire, law enforcement
and emergency medical services. As local resources are assigned to
emergencies, it may become necessary for the PSAP to request
additional resources from the EOC, either for the emergency
operation or normal operations. When local resources are assigned
to the emergency operation (which required the activation of the
EOC), other resources may need to be assigned to cover for
response to the normal emergencies that are occurring outside of
the emergency operation. These resources will normally be
requested through the EOC, which will require a communications
net or system that can operate if the radio and public telephone
system are overloaded and inoperative.

The Communications Interoperability Evaluation Matrix can be
used to evaluate the current level of interoperability between
PSAPs, the EOC, and the local, regional, state, and federal
resources that would be expected to respond to an emergency
requiring the activation of the EOC. It may be desirable to
establish pre-determined communications nets for normal operations
and for emergency operations. This will allow for the
coordination of regional, state and federal resources through the
EOC, and the transfer of resources from the EOC to the appropriate
local PSAP when necessary.

Figure 5: EOC Activation
Normal operations network vs. Emergency Operations Network

As a major emergency continues to develop, it may become necessary
to transfer the management of one or more incidents from
the PSAP to the EOC (see Figure 6). Most PSAPs or public
safety communications centers are staffed to deal with normal,
day-to-day operations. Although every communications center
has the capacity to deal with an increased work load, major catastrophic
events are likely to overload the local communications
center, which is one reason for activation of the EOC. At some
point, it may be necessary and prudent to transfer the incidents
involved in the major or catastrophic emergency (which precipitated
the activation of the EOC) over to be managed by the
EOC staff.

This may involve just one major event, such as a terrorist attack
on a public facility, where one incident commander or unified
command is communicating with the EOC. In other scenarios,
several incidents commanders may be involved in the same
emergency, such as in the case of a winter storm that has been
geographically divided into several commands. In either case, at
some point when the emergency has overwhelmed the capacity
of the local PSAP, the EOC must have the capability to assist
by managing the resources necessary to effectively respond to
the emergency. Again, this will require the development and
implementation of a pre-determined communications net so
that resources assigned to a command are assigned to the same
channel, frequency or communications system, which can be
accomplished by establishing communications nets based on
functional or mission elements (see Figures 8 and 9). The final
state of the communications networks required to coordinate
normal operations and emergency operations would be represented
by Figure 7.

Figure 6: Transfer of Incident Management to EOC
Figure 7: PSAP/EOC Coordination

Current Communications Systems
and Operations
It is practical and appropriate
to assign as many support
functions to secondary
networks as possible.
emergency services than Sprint together with Nextel. Nextel
has directed extensive resources towards meeting the needs of
public safety services and has supported public safety customers
with products and solutions. The International Association of
Fire Chiefs endorses Sprint Nextel as a secondary or parallel
communications system for the fire service. It is for this reason
that Nextel products and services are used extensively as examples
of how commercial systems provide
support for daily administrative
operations as well as emergency
response operations. That said, the
use of commercial services is not
intended to replace the primary mission-
critical land mobile radio fire
service systems. The following section
consists of a brief description of
commercial equipment or service,
followed by a discussion of how the
equipment or service can be applied
in the context of fire and emergency
services.

Handsets
Cellular phone handsets are used extensively for administrative
and support communications. Cellular service is dependant on
the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). This is the
same network used by regular telephone services.Most cellular
phone services provide extensive coverage in the major metropolitan
and suburban markets. While several commercial
providers offer a Push To Talk (PTT) capability, the capability
of Nextels radio communications network distinguishes its cellular
services from other providers. Nextel service is a nationwide
wireless voice and data system that uses an integrated
Digitally Enhance Network (iDEN), which is separate from
the PSTN. Consequently, when phone service may be congested
(which is common during an emergency), the Nextel service
is not affected.

The iDEN system is an 800 MHz digital radio communications
system that can provide radio communications across the
United States. This capability is built into every Nextel handset.
In addition to allowing the ability to communicate with
another individual user, the Group Radio feature provides for
group communications (Nextel), priority communications (Priority
Connect), a local off-network user-to-user capability
(Talkaround), and the ability to monitor talk groups (Talk
Group Scan). These features are similar to those available on
most fire service radio systems.

To meet the needs of public safety, commercial vendors can provide
intrinsically safe, ruggedized handsets that look more like a
portable radio. These devices include accessories, such as remote
speaker microphones and multi-bay charger units.Whats more,
these units consolidate functionality so that emergency personnel
carry the fewest number of devices, require less training, and
maximize the effective use of the handsets that they carry.
The Nextel PTT feature can be used
to communicate with staff members
or field units when you are out of
range of your departments primary
LMR system. It also connects when
an incident causes overloads on the
LMR or public phone systems. The
Nextel radio system can be used in
these circumstances as a redundant
back-up system to the primary
LMR, or can be used to supplement
the LMR by offloading support and
administrative communications.
Individuals from the fire command staff can communicate and
exchange information with individuals from police, EMS, the
emergency operations center and any other unit that is on the
system. Members of neighboring fire departments that are not
able to communicate easily using the departments radio system
can use the Nextel radio system to communicate with units and
responders from other jurisdictions. Through console integration,
Nextel can be integrated into almost any fire services primary
system. Nextel allows units or commanders to provide
direction and control while responding to an incident, or when
units are waiting direction at staging or base areas.
When two neighboring fire departments have disparate radio
systems, a link can be established using the different
system/common frequency approach. However, this approach
presents problems from an operational perspective. When dispatched
to an event, units from one jurisdiction are required to
switch from their normal operating channel to the shared channel.
It may be necessary for units from a number of jurisdictions
to switch from their normal operating channels to the shared
channel to communicate. Units that have switched to the shared
channel lose communication with other units responding to the
incident and with their dispatch center. They can miss the initial
size-up report from first arriving units, or miss tactical directions
and other important information about the incident. The
negative impact of this situation can be prevented by using the
Nextel radio system to communicate with responding units to
coordinate location, incident information, or directions from
command officers without requiring units to change from their
departments operating frequency or channel. Both jurisdictions
units and alarm rooms must have both frequencies. Provide a tactical
channel for operations and have the alarm room monitor all
channels. Tactical units must operate on one channel. Training,
SOPs, SOGs, communication models and working together
will overcome any of these issues.

Group Talk is another valuable capability of the Nextel/iDEN
system. This feature allows individual users to join pre-established
talk groups so that all members receive one members
transmissions. The Talk Group capability closely resembles the
way that LMR systems operatewhen one person speaks,
everyone hears the message. This feature has been used in volunteer
fire departments to allow members who are responding from
work or home to communicate with each other while responding
to the station or incident. Officers and incident commanders can
use the Talk Group feature to keep informed about the number
of personnel responding to either the fire station or the scene,
when those resources are expected to arrive, and their staffing
level or operational capabilities.

Group Talk can also be used to improve interoperability between
field commanders and the EOC, or between the EOC and
regional, state and federal response resources. Incident commanders
can exchange information with EOC staff regarding
support services and operations, planning or logistical issues, or
communicate with other disciplines using the Group Talk feature.
For example, all of the logistics function of the EOC could
Figure 8: Communications Planning by Functional Elements

Function, Task, 800 MHz VHF UHF OTHER
Assignment
Operations
Fire Attack Channel A3
Ventilation Channel A4
Search/Rescue Channel A5
Water Supply Channel B
Logistics
Staging Direct Connect:
Support Talk Group
Rehab Direct Connect:
Support Talk Group
Food Cellular
Scene Security
Perimeter Channel 4
Traffic Channel 5

be on one talk group, while the planning function is assigned to
a different talk group. If the EOC and incident commander need
to exchange information about logistical issues, those communications
would be assigned to the logistics net defined as Talk
Group 1. If the EOC and incident commander need to exchange
information about planning issues, those communications would
be assigned to the planning net defined as Talk Group 2.

Any individual on the talk group can
share communications between the
incident commander and the EOC.
For example, if the logistics officer
needs to talk with the incident commander
in the field, the communications
center contacts the incident
commander and requests that he or
she contact logistics on Talk Group 1.
If all members of the logistics section
are on the talk group, they will all be
able to hear the communications between the logistics section
chief and the incident commander. In addition, communications
involving support operations are transferred off of the primary
LMR system to the Nextel talk group, thereby increasing the
capacity of the LMR to handle emergency communications
without becoming overloaded. Resource management is made
more effective, situational awareness is increased, and firefighter
safety is improved.

The Group Talk feature also has uses for large scale or significant
events. For example, units responding to base or staging areas
could be assigned to a talk group while waiting for a tactical
assignment. Pre-determined talk groups facilitate common locations.
When command officers request resources from the staging
area, the request for resources could be made on the talk
group, with information about where the units are to report, to
whom, and on what frequency or channel. Units leaving the staging
area would then switch over to another assigned frequency or
channel for tactical operations. This type of planning allows for
more effective resource management and a higher level of situational
awareness by offloading support communications from the
LMR system to the PTT system, and by getting all resources in
the staging area onto one common communications net. Even if
units are responding to the incident from numerous jurisdictions
with different LMR systems, they can be assembled and organized
in staging areas for rapid deployment to tactical assignment
using the PTT system.

The Nextel system used by public safety services can be given
priority access over other users. The priority of calls is determined
by the FCCs classification guidelines. When a major
incident occurs, there is the possibility of congestion on the Nextel
system. Priority Connect allows public safety users to gain and
maintain priority over other private and commercial users. Priority
level is maintained for both users for the duration of the call.

Paging/Messaging
Emergency service organizations that use a one-way paging service
to send messages to administrative
staff, field units and special team
members are limited. Messages can be
sent only one way. A two-way
exchange of information is critical to
interoperability; one-way communication
systems do not meet the functional
need for the exchange of
information required for technical
interoperability.
Many cellular phone handsets are
now capable of both one-way and two-way messaging. For
example, the Emergin Messaging and Emergency Notification
system provides a two-way messaging capability that allows users
to receive, send, forward and reply to messages through Internetready
phones. Messages can be exchanged with any other messaging-
capable phone or any e-mail address. Although paging or
messaging may not be able to exchange information as quickly or
as extensively as voice communication, there are still many effective
uses for these systems. Paging and messaging can dispatch
volunteers and special team members, and act as a back-up system
for radio dispatch. The two-way capability allows responding
personnel to communicate with the dispatch center or
incident commanders, even if they do not have a radio.
Compared to cellular phones, portable radios are expensive. In
many cases, it is more cost-effective to issue volunteers a handset
with PTT radio capability and two-way messaging capability.
This functionality can be merged with computer-aided dispatch
functions so that, after a dispatch message has been sent, members
who have received the message can reply to the dispatch
center that they are responding. The dispatch center can also
notify members what talk group to use before their arrival at the
scene or the talk group that is being used by the staging area.
Special team members can respond in the same way so that the
dispatch center or incident commander knows how many special
team members are responding and when the special team can
expect to be functional.

The ability to send and receive messages through a two-way system
helps responding personnel be informed about incident
events, and gives commanders a better idea of when resources
become available and how they can be deployed. In addition, the
Emergin system has built-in accountability. A centralized log
tracks and monitors all messages sent, delivered and acknowledged.
This system provides a detailed record, as well as real-time
notification, without the delays experienced with many other
paging/messaging systems.

Console Integration
An integrated communications system has tremendous impact on
command, control and communications. Many emergency
response organizations integrate their systems with the ACU
Interconnect Systems manufactured by JPS, a subsidiary of
Raytheon. The ACU and ACU-T units are designed to connect
several disparate communications systems into one interoperable
system. Several LMR systems can be connected so that units on
one system can communicate with units on another. The ACU-
1000 can interconnect up to 24 systems, including fire service systems
(LMR) and commercial PTT systems. The transportable
version, the ACU-T, interconnects with up to six systems.
Another option is to integrate a commercial PTT system, some
of which are essentially an 800 MHz trunked radio system,
with any other private radio system. This allows the PTT system
to function as part of a comprehensive communications
system. The International Association of Fire Chiefs endorses
integrating the Nextel system into fire service communications
to provide a secondary or supplemental communication system
that supports the primary LMR system. Integrating your fire
service radio with a commercial system provides a cost-effective
way to supplement communications and improve interoperability.
For example, if an incident commander wants to talk to a hazmat
team member who happens to be at a conference in another
state, the commander can connect and exchange information
with that team member and any other member of the hazmat
team who is listening on the PTT frequency or channel assigned
to hazmat operations.

Support personnel or agencies that do not have LMR capability
may well have Nextel or PTT capability. For example, the Red
Cross or Salvation Army, who are often part of support services
resources at major incidents, can be included in support operations
through console integration so that they can exchange
information with staging, base or rehab officers on the LMR
support net. A potential benefit for console integration is when
dispatch net is used for those users who do not have LMR equipment.
Once dispatched through the integrated LMR/PTT system,
users who have the PTT equipment can be directed to the
talk group for response information. Since this talk group is connected
to the LMR system, all members on the talk group and
the LMR channel hear the transmission. The system operates as
if all members on the PTT and LMR systems were actually on
a single system.

Figure 9: Communications Planning by Mission Elements

Mission Element 	Communications System
Command and Control 	800 MHz
Operations		800 MHz
Logistics		Direct Connect
Admin/Finance 		Cellular
Law Enforcement 	VHF
Medical 		UHF

Here is an example of how a typical interoperable communications system 
may break out. To
link the systems you can integrate consoles or use a gateway system.

GPS Location and Tracking
Global positioning systems (GPS) are most commonly used as
part of automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems connected with
a computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system.However, the combination
of these systems is expensive to install and maintain, so
many public safety services do not have GPS capability. Yet
GPS-enabled cellular phones are a relatively inexpensive way to
obtain the benefits of a positioning
and tracking system.

Commercial GPS systems, such as the
positioning, tracking and navigation
solutions provided by TeleNav and
others, are an example of the benefits
of accepting the 80% solution. One of
the major concerns of commercial
GPS systems is that the mapping
database used for positioning, tracking
and directing users is not reliable or
complete enough to meet the needs of
public safety.While dispatch databases
must be extremely reliable and complete,
GPS positioning and tracking systems do not. If a
communications and dispatch center has no GPS capability, then
the level of completeness of commercial GPS mapping databases,
which are clearly better than 80%, is a substantial improvement
over no GPS capability.

The ability to position and track resources contributes to a more
effective use of resources. Commercial GPS information can be
integrated into CAD systems and used as an AVL system.
Whether the resources being tracked are volunteer personnel or
engines and medical units, their position can be used to determine
which units are closest to an incident. Usually, the closest
station is dispatched to a call for service. But if the resources
assigned to that station are not in the station at the time, then
other resources may be able to reach the scene of the emergency
sooner. Commercial-based GPS can provide the information
necessary to determine which resources can reach the scene of an
emergency quickest.

GPS information can also be used by incident commanders.
Information about the location of resources can be used to determine
how quickly resources will be available for tactical assignments,
and whether more resources should be requested. In
addition, the GPS can be used to locate units and other resources
at the scene of an emergency. For example, if all units in the staging
area have GPS-enabled phones, then the GPS tracking program
will indicate which units are at the staging area. If units are
assigned to geographical divisions, or even functional groups,
their location at the incident can be tracked as part of a resource
or personnel accountability system. The geographic location of
command staff can also be tracked using GPS-enabled phones so
that commanders know the exact location of division or group
supervisors. The limitation of GPS systems is that, because they
operate using satellites, units that are inside buildings or otherwise
blocked from sending signals will not be visible.
GPS programs can also provide driving
directions for responding units
and personnel. One GPS programs,
TeleNav, provides visual and audible
directions. Routes are automatically
calculated and recalculated if the
responding unit misses a turn. This
type of system can be used as a backup
to paper maps or in conjunction
with paper mapping procedures. For
example, the TeleNav program might
be used to get units to the general
area. Units would then switch over to
the paper maps for exact directions
into locations if they are not available on the TeleNav database.
GPS coordinates provided by these applications may also be used
to land medical transport helicopters. Rather than trying to
direct a helicopter landing by cross streets, a GPS system provides
specific latitude and longitude coordinates for any location;
these coordinates can then be communicated to the transport
helicopter crew.

GPS systems can also be used as a mobile asset management
tool. ActSoft has developed an application that tracks the
amount of time that units spend on tasks and the location of
those resources while completing tasks. Using their handset,
units can clock in and out of customized task lists that provide
information on what tasks crews are involved with and how
much time they are spending on those tasks. This type of system
can provide productivity information that can be used to manage
programs and services, and support budget requests. Fire and
emergency service crews and individuals spend much, if not
most, of their working time away from fixed facilities like fire stations.
Fire crews are out of quarters for training, conducting
inspections, participating in life safety education programs, and
other special projects. Most fire departments have no system to
determine how much time is spent on these activities. Part of the
problem is that it takes so much time to enter the data required
to sustain this kind of database. If units can enter data one time
and in small segments over the course of an entire shift, they are
more likely to enter accurate data that can be used in program
planning and budgeting.

Interoperability Directory
To make interoperability work, you need to know who to talk to.
Communities need an up-to-date resource of public safety and
other community organizations. Sprint together with Nextel
provides a secure interoperability
directory for emergency response services
to quickly and easily contact people,
organizations, agencies and other
resources. The ability to quickly and
easily obtain resources and information
contributes to the overall effectiveness
of emergency operations by
decreasing the time and effort required
to get resources into action. The ability
to contact specialists who can provide
detailed information and advice
about an incident is invaluable for rapidly
developing and implementing an
effective action plan.
Use an interoperability directory that provides voluntary sharing
of information by governmental agencies, organizations and
individuals. Restrict access to government agency and other
authorized users. A good directory allows searches by name,
department or other search criteria. Successful searches provide
contact numbers for work, mobile phone, Nextel radio system
code and e-mail.

The ability to contact people, agencies and organizations is critical
when responding to a major incident that requires regional,
state or federal resources and information. If they are not part of
normal day-to-day operations, it is usually time-consuming and
difficult to obtain contact information. Without an interoperability
directory, dispatchers or support staff must search through
databases or other directories that are often out of date. The
interoperability directory stays up-to-date by making all users
responsible for the information they choose to share.

Database Access/Look-up
Law enforcement organizations can access information stored on
a remote database. These database look-up applications can
access state and local criminal justice information, as well as the
federal National Crime Information Center database. Officers
can check for felony warrants and view images remotely from the
field. In addition, data interoperability has been found to significantly
reduce the volume of voice transmissions during emergency
operations. The Capital Wireless Integrated Network
(CapWIN) project has demonstrated how data interoperability
allows for the exchange of information between responding
units, command and communications centers, and thereby
reduces channel congestion and the need for complex radio systems.
This area of technical interoperability
has enormous potential for fire and
emergency medical services, yet is
vastly under-developed. Database
look-up is another powerful tool to
access information for incident action
plans and special team operations, as
well as for inspection and investigation
purposes. Firefighters can use
database lookup systems to access
pre-fire plans, while paramedics can
access prescription drug information.
Fire inspectors and investigators can
access occupancy information and the history of fire code violations
from the field. Remote access facilitates the most effective
and efficient use of operational and administrative resources.
Application software and hand-held hardware can provide fire
and emergency medical services with remote access to key information
databases. Fire and EMS organizations use information
databases regularly. Field access to databases increases efficiency
by reducing the number of times information must be entered
into forms. Basic incident reporting is usually initiated in the
field, and then repeated when units return to quarters, where
they access the reporting database. Off-site access to these databases
reduces redundancies and the potential for errors. For
example, the time and effort required to complete incident and
inspection reports can be reduced if personnel can complete
these reports in the field without having to return to the station
to use a computer that has access to the database. Remote access
can be achieved through secure, reliable Internet access applications
and relay systems. Software applications and the handsets
that are necessary to establish field access are available through
private and commercial cellular services. A broad range of applications
are developing in this area, and represent another benefit
to working with commercial vendors.

Patient Tracking
The ability to track patients transported from the scene of an
emergency is not only important for emergency responders, but
also for hospitals, and particularly for family members of those
transported. The Emergency Patient Tracking System (EPTS)
developed by Sprint and its partners is an example of a comprehensive
system that provides important information about
patient care and location that can be exchanged between emergency
responders and receiving hospitals, and shared, when
appropriate, with family members.

Using a Nextel handset or PDA and barcode scanner attachment,
emergency medical personnel can quickly enter patient
information, triage, and medical assessment information. The
system allows personnel to check the status of potential receiving
hospitals to make sure they are not on a divert status, or otherwise
unable to receive the patient. At the receiving facility, EPTS
information can be used to track incoming casualties, prepare for
treatment and speed admissions. On-scene commanders or the
EOC can monitor this information. It can also be provided to a
separate information center at the scene, the EOC, or the hospital
to facilitate family inquiries or to make public information
announcements.

Because triage systems are not frequently used, except for in mass
casualty incidents, they can be confusing for response personnel.
Yet when personnel use the EPTS on a regular basis as part of
their normal operations, then the procedures used to triage and
track patients is smooth. It is best to implement a Mass Casualty
Incident (MCI) Plan that uses familiar equipment and normal
procedures.

Emergency Response Teams
Even the best interoperable systems may not be able to support
large mass casualty incidents or regional emergencies.Whenever
a large scale emergency or event stresses your system, consider
calling in an emergency response team (ERT). For example,
the Nextel ERT responds to state and federally declared disasters,
and can participate in field training exercises. The team is
deployed with a range of equipment depending on the needs and
requests of emergency response personnel. Nextels ERT can
provide equipment on short notice to meet the demand for communications
systems and services generated by disasters. The
team can field Satellite Cellular On Wheels (Sat-COW) units,
Satellite Cellular On Light Truck (Sat-COLT) units, several
hundred ruggedized handsets, and the managers and engineers
required to place these units and associated equipment into operation
and maintain their operation over the length of the disaster
response and recovery phases.

Some jurisdictions have included these units into their emergency
communications plans. Most emergency-management
plans assume that disaster conditions may create significant damage
to the communications infrastructure. The communications
annex of the Federal Response Plan states: At a time when the
need for real-time electronically processed information is greatest,
the capability to acquire it may be seriously restricted or nonexistent.
In such situations, all surviving telecommunications
assets of the various levels of government, augmented by extraregional
assets, will be needed immediately to ensure proper
response to the needs of victims of the event. The Nextel ERT
can be used as an extra-regional asset for restoring communications
or supplementing primary systems that may have sustained
severe damage.

The Sat-COLT and Sat-COW equipment allows emergency
responders to establish communications systems in remote areas
that normally do not have any communications system infrastructure,
such as in the case of wildland fires. These systems
communicate directly with satellites, so there is no need for local
towers or other infrastructure. Deploying this equipment can
create a local interoperable communications network where none
would otherwise exist. The Sat-COLT and Sat-COW equipment
can also be located in gaps between other systems or equipment,
creating a larger interconnected communications network.
Clearly, this is advantageous for emergency responders.
Solutions and Recommendations:
Establishing Interoperable Systems

Operational needs are the driving factor behind technical interoperability.
Operational needs of response units must drive the
type, level and extent of technical interoperability. The first step
in developing a plan for improving interoperability is to describe
the needs of emergency response resources. Who will work
together? Under what circumstances will they work together?
How will they work together? What information do they need to
work together? How will information be exchanged?
Interoperable communication systems do not need to achieve
100% interoperability. Instead, they must achieve the level of
operational and technical interoperability that is appropriate for
the region. Involve the public in interoperability planning so that
citizens and community groups are aware of the needs of emergency
responders. Harness citizen support for decision making
involving evaluating options and making recommendations for
improvements. Interoperability planning that is done on a
regional basis and that involves the public is more likely to
receive the financial and political support required from local legislative
decision makers.

Operational Interoperability Strategies

Even though every public safety service agency operates in cooperation
and coordination with other jurisdictions and disciplines,
these relationships are rarely planned or critically assessed from
an operational perspective.Too often, operational interoperability
is an ad-hoc relationship formed to respond to a single incident,
and is dissolved after the incident is over. This operational
model results in limited operational effectiveness and unnecessary
risk for first responders. A coherent
and shared description of current
operational practices and capabilities
provides the foundation for making
changes in the way multiple jurisdictions
and disciplines work together.
Use this information during joint incidents
and for planning improvements
in joint operations.

An operational interoperability profile includes an assessment of
the following:
 Incident Type: What types of incidents require a multiple
jurisdictional or disciplinary response? How often do these
types of incidents occur? What is their impact or the consequence
of these types of incidents? The most frequent incidents
or those that have the most severe consequences
should be the priority for improving operational interoperability.
 Resources: What resources are required to effectively
respond to high-priority incidents? Does the response
require a multiple jurisdictional or disciplinary response, or
both? Incident types that require the response of multiple
jurisdictions or disciplines should be the priority for operational
interoperability planning.
 Operational Options: Will the jurisdictions or disciplines
responding to an event operate in an integrated or partitioned
environment? In an integrated operation, multiple
jurisdictions or disciplines are combined to accomplish specific
tactical objectives. In a partitioned environment, jurisdictions
and disciplines are kept separate and assigned
different tactical objectives. If resources will be integrated
into operations, this will require different command and
control procedures and communications systems than if
their tactical assignments are partitioned to a single jurisdiction
or discipline.
 Operational Assignments:What are the anticipated assignments
for the jurisdictions or disciplines that respond to the
incident types? What tactical objectives and tasks will be
assigned to them? Based on these assignments, what are the
anticipated reporting relationships in terms of command
and control within the ICS structure?
 Communications: What are the requirements for information
exchange between response jurisdictions? Between
response disciplines? Consider the type of information
shared between command staff and operational units,
between units, between command
staff, and between support agencies.
Prioritize these profiles based on
the most critical types of responses
that occur most regularly. Use the
profile as a planning guide for
response operations for critical incidents
that do not occur frequently
but that have severe regional or
national consequences, such as a terrorist attack.

Regional/Joint Operations Approach
Interoperability is all about the ability of multiple jurisdictions or
disciplines to operate together effectively. The ability to deliver
effective emergency response services has become a much more
complex endeavor. Effective response services require the cooperation
of fire, police, medical and other agencies at a higher level
than in the past. We cannot continue to operate in isolation from
the other jurisdictions and disciplines that are essential to our
ability to protect the infrastructure of our communities and the
quality of life of our citizens. This is not a reflection of some
kind of inability or lack of support or inadequacy on the part of
emergency response organizations. It is the result of the economic,
social and political conditions of our times. Whether we
like it or not, whether we resist or cooperate, we are being forced
to operate jointly with other jurisdictions and disciplines because
it is what the public wants and expects. It is time to recognize
this idea as a legitimate desire and need of the public, and to support
the concept of joint operations between jurisdictions and
disciplines.
The concept of interoperability planning must begin by examining
the operational context of emergency services. What types
of incidents require operational interoperability? Where do they
occur? How often? What resources are needed from what jurisdictions
or disciplines in order to effectively respond to these
incidents? How will these jurisdictions/disciplines work together?
Will operations be integrated or partitioned? What assignments
will be given to which jurisdictions/disciplines? What
information will they need? How often will information need to
be exchanged? What systems will be used to exchange information?
Are there back-up systems available in case these systems
become inoperative? Which systems need to be connected
together into a system of systems that can provide the necessary
information exchange? Do these systems need to be fixed or
flexible in how and when they are linked?
Regional planning for operational interoperability provides the
opportunity to gain the support of numerous public safety services
for a plan to improve the operational capability of fire, law
enforcement, emergency medical services and emergency management.
These are important services for the public. When
pubic safety services come together on a regional basis to support
a plan for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of emergency
response services, it is very difficult for any person or group
to stand in opposition. The power of regional planning is in its
ability to create and sustain the momentum of economic and
political support necessary to develop, plan and implement
changes in operational and technical interoperability.

Collaborative Planning
The ability to work together starts with the ability to plan together.
Regional planning must involve the jurisdictions and disciplines
expected to work together to provide effective emergency
response services. Each jurisdiction and discipline involved must
be open to the needs and desires of the others and include both
line and staff personnel in the planning process. The approach to
planning must be one of collaboration rather than competition.
Each emergency service brings certain capabilities based on their
mission, resources, training and equipment that can support other
emergency services. Collaborating involves building on the
strengths of each agency involved in the process so that the operational
impact of emergency services is maximized. As has been
stated earlier, any issues involving territorialism, competition and
the myth of self-sufficiency do not belong as part of the planning
process. As public safety professionals, whether paid or volunteer,
we have a responsibility to rise above these issues for the good of
the public and the safety of our people.

Unified Command and Control
Operational interoperability depends largely on the ability of
jurisdictions and disciplines to effectively command and control
resources operating jointly in the field. The ability of crews and
personnel to work together in the field requires the support of
command officers and depends on their ability to work together
in a unified command structure. The planning process must
include discussion of how command and control will work from
a practical perspective. When units from other jurisdictions or
disciplines are part of tactical operations, how will they be controlled
and by whom? If there are limitations to their capabilities,
what tactical assignments or objectives are appropriate based
on their capabilities?

In addition, different jurisdictions and disciplines must agree on
the command structure that will be adopted and used in joint
operations. Several versions of the Incident Command System
are currently in use around the country, while some jurisdictions
use a very informal command and control system. The fire service
uses the ICS system extensively, while law enforcement and
emergency medical services are less familiar with the use of any
formal procedures for command and control of resources. The
National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides the
foundation for the development of regional command and control
systems.
Technical Interoperability Strategies

The National Institute of Justices Guide to Radio Communications
Interoperability Strategies and Products is a comprehensive
report on communications interoperability strategies. A
summary of the information contained in that report is presented
here; the reader is encouraged to read the entire report.
Four main strategies are generally recognized as options for
developing technical communications
interoperability. They are:
 Creating a single radio system that
provides communication for multiple
disciplines or jurisdictions.
 Establishing procedures for sharing
a common frequency or channel
between disciplines or jurisdictions.
 Installing a permanent gateway
device that establishes a radio
interface through communications centers.
 Deploying a temporary, transportable gateway or interconnect
device that creates an ad-hoc interoperable communications
system during a tactical operation.

A single radio system can be established by swapping portable or
mobile radios between disciplines or jurisdictions. A more
expensive and long-range option is to create a shared communications
system. A single system may involve combining dispatch
and communications center, or simply linking them through a
common CAD and radio communications system. Also, commercial
services offer reliable communications system that can be
used for non-critical communications or as an alternative or
back-up to private LMR systems.

Using common frequencies or channels between different communications
systems is another common strategy. One of the
shortcomings of this strategy is the limited number of channels
that are usually established as shared or interoperability channels.
System-to-system gateways are becoming a more common strategy
for improving communications interoperability. These can be
permanently installed in communications centers through a console
patch to integrate different systems. For example, Console
Integration equipment connects LMR systems with the Nextel
Service. Portable switches or interconnect systems can also be
used to integrate communications systems between resources in
the field. The ACU-1000 and the portable ACU-T are probably
the best known portable interconnect
systems.

Communications or technical interoperability
needs can also be evaluated
based on the concept of a local
area communications network and a
wide area communications network.
The frequency and number of incidents
involving operational interoperability
and the volume of
information exchanged determines which jurisdictions or disciplines
are included in the local or wide area network.
The local area communications network should include jurisdictions
or disciplines with operational interoperability that you
work with on a daily or weekly basis. These should have fixed
technically interoperable systems that can support regular, frequent
incidents requiring operational interoperability.

The wide area communications network includes jurisdictions
and disciplines that operate together less frequently. Depending
on the history of regional incidents and practices, include those
that you work with once a month or less over the course of a year.
Portable or flexible systems can connect one set of jurisdictions
and disciplines for one incident, and another set of jurisdictions
and disciplines for another incident. Clearly, it is not desirable,
necessary or practical to include all possible jurisdictions or disciplines
in the area wide communications network. Only agencies
that would reasonably be expected to respond to an event
should be considered.

Action Steps to Implement Interoperable
Communications

Combine the talents and resources of the various public safety services in your area into 
your interoperability systems plan. The jurisdictions and disciplines involved in 
operations should collaborate in planning so that they can operate under a unified 
command and control structure.

Begin interoperability planning by examining the operational context of 
emergency services.
 What types of incidents require operational interoperability?
 Where do they occur?
 How often?
 What resources are needed from what jurisdictions or disciplines to effectively respond 
to these incidents?
 How will these jurisdictions or disciplines work together?
 Will operations be integrated or partitioned?
 What assignments will be given to which jurisdictions or disciplines?
 What information will they need? How often will information need to be exchanged?
 What systems will be used to exchange information?
 Are there back-up systems available if systems become inoperative?
 Which systems need to be connected to provide the necessary information exchange?
 Do these systems need to be fixed or flexible in how and when they are linked?
Each jurisdiction and discipline involved must be open to the needs and desires of the 
others. Include line and staff personnel in the planning process. Planning must be 
collaborative rather than competitive. Each emergency service brings certain capabilities 
based on their mission, resources, training and equipment that can support other 
emergency services. Collaborating builds on the strengths of each agency so that the 
operational impact of emergency services is maximized.

Steps to Create Regional Interoperability

1) Organization
i) Establish a regional interoperability
planning group including at a
minimum: Fire, law enforcement,
emergency medical services, and
emergency management.
2)Define the Problem
i) Conduct an operational and technical
interoperability profile for
each agency involved in planning.
ii) Conduct come-as-you-are training
exercises to demonstrate the capabilities
and limitations of the current
interoperability profile.
iii) Describe explicitly the issues that
have limited interoperability in the
past.
3) Establish Criteria for a Solution
i) Develop an interoperability planning
matrix, including an assessment
of the following issues:
(a) ICS and C3,
(b) resource management, situational
awareness,
(c) individual communications
systems,
(d) interoperability of individual
communications systems.
4)Define and Describe Viable
OptionsCosts and Benefits
i) Operational practices
ii) Technical communications
systems
(a) Improving current systems.
(b) Interoperability strategies.
(c) Commercial off-the-shelf
equipment.
iii) Short-term and long-term options.

5) Recommendations
i) Describe regional context: political,
social, economic, operational.
ii) Describe the factors that need to
change to achieve an appropriate
level of interoperability between
jurisdictions and disciplines.
iii) Describe the short-term and longterm
recommendations of the
planning group.
iv) Explain the justification for the
recommendations; the costs and
benefits in terms of:
(a) Increased operational
effectiveness.
(b) Improved personnel safety.
(c) Command and control.
(d) Resource management.
(e) Communications.
(f ) Situational awareness.
(g) Ability to leverage assets.
(h) Faster planning and execution.
(i) Better decision making.
(j) Minimize ad-hoc workarounds
and freelancing.
(k) More rapid, coherent,
coordinated operations.
v) Provide a summary of the public
safety service organizations and
support service organizations that
support the recommendations and
why

6)Implementation Plan
i) Short-term recommendations and
goals.
(a) Action steps (what needs to
be accomplished).
(b) Responsibilities (who is
responsible).
(c) Costs (how much will it cost
in terms of time, money,
effort).
ii) Long-term recommendations and
goals.
(a) Action steps (what needs to
be accomplished).
(b) Responsibilities (who is
responsible).
(c) Costs (how much will it cost
in terms of time, money,
effort).
iii) Support necessary to achieve
short- and long-term recommendations
and goals.
iv) Evaluation criteria used to monitor
improvements in interoperability
and impact on operational
effectiveness and personnel safety.

Making Interoperability a Reality

Many improvements in interoperability can be made with shifts
in resources, increasing the priority of interoperability, and training.
Fire departments do not go to incidents without fire hoses,
and police departments do not go without guns. Public safety
organizations must place interoperability at the same level of
importance as other essential components of their operational
service capability. If we are without interoperability, we are limiting
our operational effectiveness and
placing our personnel at increased risk.
Multiple jurisdictional and disciplinary
training exercises can be used to
evaluate current levels of operational
and technical interoperability. Comeas-
you-are type training exercises will
undoubtedly demonstrate that certain
areas of interoperability need improvement.
This is a good thing, and should
not be perceived as demonstrating ineptness or incompetence.
Joint training exercises identify interoperability weaknesses and
shortfalls, as well as the obstacles to interoperability. Training
exercises that demonstrate a need help to justify changes in practices
and resource allocation. The challenge for public safety
services is to be willing to show the real weaknesses in our capability
to help justify necessary improvements in interoperability.

Improvements in interoperability require strong leadership and a
cooperative approach to regional planning. Because, by definition,
interoperability involves multiple jurisdictions and disciplines,
planning improvements in interoperability must involve
the public safety and support services that work together on a
regular basis. In addition, with the increased concern over homeland
security, an even larger number of other public safety services
and support services must be included in planning for a
terrorist attack. Planning must recognize the need for interoperability
to work in the day-to-day routing operations, as well as
the extreme situations that occur infrequently, but have extreme
consequences on a regional or national level. The challenge for
public safety services is to get the appropriate representatives
together to plan, implement, and evaluate interoperability
improvements. Given the current context of public safety organizations,
finding the time and resources for this effort may seem
daunting. However, a combined and sustained effort on the part
of public safety organizations to make improvements in interoperability
is a powerful force.

Traditional land mobile radio systems
alone are incapable of affordably
providing the capacity,
redundancy, and reliability necessary
to meet the needs of interoperability.
As interoperability increases, so must
the complexity of operational procedures
and technical systems.With an
increased level of interoperability, the
number of users exchanging voice and data information on a
communications system will increase. The effort required to
coordinate communications will become more complex as limited
communications systems resources are allocated to more
units or as different communications systems are connected
together. Commercial off-the-shelf equipment and services
should be used to improve interoperability and solve technical
communications problems. Select commercial equipment, services
and systems that have the capacity, reliability, and redundancy
necessary to be used as a primary system of
communications for administrative operations, and that can be
used as a support system or supplemental communications system
for emergency operations. The challenge for public safety
services is to be comfortable using systems that we do not own
or completely control. Ownership and control should not be a
barrier to the improvements in our operational effectiveness
and for the safety of our personnel that result from increased
interoperability.

Commercial off-the-shelf
technologies are potential
solutions to interoperability
problems.

CASE STUDIES:
Real-World Examples
of Interoperable Communications

Charlottesville Fire
Department

Image of Firefighter Chris Carter checking his Nextel for updates

Developing Community Support
After Sept. 11, 2001, community leaders requested information
on interoperability and development of a regional interoperable
network. It is important to have a community leader who has
access to and the respect of many constituencies.
Deputy Chief Charles Werner first met with other chiefs within
his department, and then with other chiefs within other community
agencies. The goal was to communicate the value of an
interoperable communications system and then create awareness
of the options and solutions. Once there was buy-in by various
agencies,Werner migrated to working with the chief s designates
in agencies such as city police, county police, volunteer rescue,
community medical center, health department, schools, emergency
services coordinator, poison control center, regional 911
PSAP, and others.

System Development
After determining needs, Werner set up the system. We had
outstanding support from the vendor to resolve functionality and
provide training with phones. Demo phones in the right places
also helped immensely. The vendor support was and is key to the
success of such a program, said Werner
The fire department communicated with other community
agencies as the system was deployed to be sure it was developed
in a manner that could be shared. Successes were referenced from
other locations and the value to emergency preparedness and
interoperable communications was regularly conveyed. The fact
that the Nextel walkie-talkies are not on the public telephone
switch was important to various constituencies. The process took
about a year to develop and implement within the fire service,
and continues to be rolled out to various agencies.
The system is managed on a day-to-day basis by Werner and
other fire fighters on staff who have shown an interest in technology.

Nextel Utilization
Sprint together with Nextel has provided an invaluable communications
tool and helped Charlottesville overcome radio interference
issues. It has also provided a redundancy (back-up to
back-up). It has created unique and effective interoperability
between other public safety agencies, across political jurisdictions
and to critical non-public safety agencies (public works, schools,
health and medical, transportation, etc.). It has fit within budget
constraints, as it replaced existing wireless devices. It has also
enhanced communication at special events (football games with
60,000+ in attendance, etc.).
The system is working phenomenally. And it will be even
greater when tied into our new radio system. I have never had
such flexibility and effectiveness.While out of town, I have been
able to communicate with various agencies, resolve problems,
communicate to incident commanders and alert other city
departments, said Werner.
The system has enhanced the departments ability to clearly
understand voice communications and to do remote paging with
units.

Charlottesville Provides Interagency/
Interdisciplinary Communications

Charlottesville is creating an 800 MHz trunked P25 public safety
radio system that will achieve 100% interoperability between
all public safety agencies within the region (fire, EMS, law
enforcement, jail, airport, etc.), which includes the city of Charlottesville,
Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia
(approximately 744 square miles).

Charlottesville has learned that its primary system may not be,
and most likely is not, enough to handle the avalanche of communications
that occur during an unusual or catastrophic event.

This was demonstrated in other locales, such as during the Salt
Lake City Olympics, the World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks,
and the crash of the Space Shuttle. Therefore, Charlottesville has
several layers within its communications system. We link the
Nextel walkie-talkie (push to talk) to our public radio systems
creating a network that can work in parallel to our public safety
primary system. In reality this enables us to use Nextels iDEN
800 MHz radio infrastructure independently for logistical communications
as well as interfaced with our public safety system.

It is tied to several interoperability talk groups on the public safety
800 radio system, said Werner. The overarching benefits
received from this public-private interface will allow Charlottesville
to expand its interoperability efforts beyond public
safety to other key organizations, such as public works, transit,
transportation, health department, poison control centers, medical
centers, mutual aid dispatch centers, and schools, without
any real effort.

Charlottesville will be implementing voice-over IP with an 800
MHz radio system (costing about $15,000), which will allow
personnel to communicate with anyone in the world who has an
Internet connection. Charlottesville will be able to take advantage
of specialists from anywhere in the world for future incidents
that cannot be anticipated today.

To address interoperability demands further and to support
efforts with outside agencies at the tactical level, Charlottesville
is deploying four interoperability boxes (ACU 100s) in the field.
Theses will also link back to the public safety radio system.
The last level includes situational awareness across disciplines
through the use of WebEOC, a password-protected software
application that is accessible via a Web browser and that allows
agencies to see activities or requests placed on them as well as
other agencies.WebEOC gives everyone a better view of the big
picture. Charlottesville is also working with CAPWIN to link
their operation.

Where I see the key value to Nextel is in the development of
systems which combine the use of Nextel phones to interface
with legacy radio systems and utilize applications that enhance
our ability to communicate during events, said Werner.

Nextel Services
Radio, CAD text alerting (with Emergin), talk groups, group
talk, Priority Access, two-way messaging to phones for administrative
(replaces pager), Internet access for chief officers. Currently,
testing GPS applications with Comet Tracker.
Charlottesville started with purchasing the simplest and most
inexpensive phones. Now that they have proven their effectiveness,
Charlottesville is migrating to the ruggedized phones and
looking at modems.

Capital Expenditure
Expenses are comparable to other communication options that
Charlottesville has used or investigated. We feel we get more
value due to the added capacity of the handsets, said Werner.
The departments communication funding comes primarily from
the city budget. However, the department received a $6 million
grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, of which
part will be used to implement an interface with a new 800 MHz
radio system.

Product Information
The department researched its communication strategies
through active participation in various committees supporting
interoperability. This allowed for networking and information
gathering.Working with vendors was key to awareness as well as
accessing information and facilitating successful demonstrations.

Next Steps
 Interface with CAD to automate notification to units,
groups (using Emergin).
 GPS application to track fire units while in the field (using
Comet Tracker).
 Interface with new 800 MHz radio system (using
ACT/TRP-1000).
 Implement interoperability directory.
 Develop a formalized interoperability communications
strategy for the region.

Anaheim Fire
Department
Image of Anaheim Fire Department Battallion Chief Larry Waterhouse using 
technology to track apparatus.

System Development
Uses TeleNav for GPS positioning. It helped during the California
wild fires by showing exactly where their rigs were. It updates
positions every two minutes. They dont interface it with their
CAD system, as they dont think thats necessary. Perhaps police
or other first responders who are not statically deployed and use
a fluid system could use the system to choose the closest unit for
a dispatch. They do have the system in place to use in a largescale
emergency such as an earthquake; in that case they will use
it to keep track of resources and choose the closest team to handle
certain types of calls.

Capital Expenditure
It was an inexpensive system to set up. Is programmed by Fire
Department with help from TeleNav technical support. Is using
the 5-meg system, which is a little more expensive but still reasonable
at about $20/month. The system can be downsized to
update every 5 to 15 minutes for a small savings.

Product Information
There are a number of mapping and tracking features being
brought online that will allow for routing and mapping for the
user. The system also has the ability to find a users location from
a second phone. This will allow for pinpoint locations of field
resources to be accessed directly from a phone.

Nextel Utilization
Anaheim uses a private radio system for its primary radio communications,
but uses Nextel extensively as a parallel system covering
paging, radio, and talk groups, as well as GPS. For many
departments, a support system this robust would require fire
fighters to carry numerous gadgets in addition to their private
radios. For Anaheim, though, its just onea Nextel wireless
phone.

Next Steps
 Set up a stop analysis system to collect data on the daily
activities of fire inspections and haz-mat specialist.
 Report when inspectors get to sites and how long the inspections
take. This history for each type of inspection helps create
reports on annual time spent on certain types of
inspections. This information can then be used to better
demonstrate the amount of time it takes to do mandated
inspections and generate reports that are required by the
state.

Clayton Fire
Department

Image: Fire chief Mark Thorp shows Tom Ridge, former Department of Homeland 
Security Secrity, the C Communication System

Communications Issues
The St. Louis County region has 64 fire protection districts that
can respond to a single incident, if necessary. Information sharing
between many disciplines from many jurisdictions is crucial. One
component to supporting interoperable communications is sharing
actual, secure data and real-time written text messages, using
the Internet as the common platform. In most areas, victims from
mass casualty incidents are transported by the quickest arriving
ambulances to the closest hospital emergency rooms. While
offering a potentially rapid response for smaller incidents, in multiple
or mass casualty situations, transporting many (or all) critically
injured victims to the closest hospital results in overburdened
facilities, slower medical response times, less than optimal patient
care, inaccurate patient lists, and incomplete public information.

System Development
The St. Louis Metropolitan Medical Response System has
embarked on several initiatives to integrate systems to improve
patient care. The programs seek to increase cooperation, as well
as leverage technology for improved communications and collaboration
between the regions first responders, hospitals, and all
others responsible for incident management.
The SLMMRS team knew that information technology was the
key to integrating many organizations, including more than 700
forms of local government in the region, into one effort, and to
increasing the efficiency of their response to an event. In August
2002, with the leadership and cooperation of first responders, hospitals,
and public service organizations, as well as assistance from
several industry partners, SLMMRS implemented a regional
emergency patient tracking system. The tracking system enables
first responders to communicate vital health information throughout
the entire care continuum, improving access to, and reliability
of, critical data to speed response, transport, and treatment.

Capital Expenditure
The project received grants from the Department of Homeland
Securitys Urban Area Security Initiative and the Department of
Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services
Administration.

Developing Community Support
To ensure user buy-in and technical connectivity, the system
development and implementation team must consist of at least
one representative from each community of interest, including
individual first responder units, patient transporters and
hospitals.

Nextel Utilization
The county uses Nextels (I58sr rugged handset, AGPS chipset
built-in, JAVA capability, IDEN Packet Data capability) and
AirClic scanners while the city uses Symbol PDAs to wireless
remote to laptop. Software was developed by Raytheon and
AirClic.

How System is Working
Hundreds of times faster than the old system, according to
Chief Mark Thorp, Clayton Fire Department. Can you imagine
if we had this at 9/11? St. Louis City uses a PDA to wireless
remote to laptop configuration. This eases data entry but is
cumbersome and expensive. Only two units are in the field at one
time. The counties use the Nextel configuration, which is a lot
less expensive, because most units already use Nextel for a parallel
fire service communications tool. The Nextels arent as userfriendly,
but because they are so versatile, they can go out with
most units.

The EPTS is much faster and provides more accountability than
previous systems. EPTS allows for greater command and control.
EPTS also assists regional planning and government
responses. EPTS provides real-time information regarding the
human toll of an incident and the type of injury or disease. Local,
state, and national homeland security officials may use the data
to determine trends. If a biologic event or chemical poisoning
occurs, intelligence gathered from EPTS, and enhanced with
GPS and GIS mapping, can track the path of injury, and identify
others who may be at risk.Additionally, data and text messages
are continuously available for review and analysis.

The 3 Cs
By William Pessemier

Image of firefighters putting out house fire.

Communications technology is an essential component of command and control. During 
relatively simple incidents, such as residential structure fires involving
only one fire department, responders can usually establish and sustain effective
command, control and communications. However, when operations become more
complex, such as the response to the Oklahoma City bombing, the shootings at
Columbine High School or the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, command and control
become problematic, and communications problems can develop. For example,
radio channel congestion and communications system overload occur at almost all
catastrophic incidents involving multiple jurisdictions and public-safety disciplines.
Some events, usually natural disasters, can severely damage communications 
infrastructure
by blowing down radio towers, cutting communications cables or shutting
down power supplies. These problems have a negative effect on resource coordination,
response times and situational awareness. The bottom line: Resources are
wasted, and we see an increase in casualties and property damage.

The public is well aware of our need to improve our response to complex incidents
involving multiple jurisdictions, multiple disciplines and multiple levels of
expectsdemandsthat we do better. But we cannot continue to throw technology
at the problem. First, we need a better understanding of what command and 
control are all about, and how communications technology supports them.
government. 

THE ELEMENTS OF COMMAND

Three main elements contribute to establishing and sustaining
command and control: people, structure and
technology (see Figure 1, below).
Peoplefrom company
officers to incident commanders
are the incident
managers, who manage
resources through an organizational
structure. People
also use technology to
communicate and to display information about the
response. A doctrine of command and control is established
when people choose strategies and principles during
response operations. For example, if the fire, law
enforcement, EMS and emergency management people
in a region met and decided to use the National Incident
Management System (NIMS) for incidents, and if they
agreed to share their communications resources in a specific
way, they will have established a regional doctrine
for command and control. A mission-oriented doctrine
simply means that organizing and coordinating an effective
response operation is the primary focus of decision
making, not jurisdictional boundaries or interdepartmental
rivalries.

Organized responses to complex incidents must be
based on a common structure or system that each
responding agency can use and understand, such as the
incident command system (ICS) or NIMS. These systems
provide an integrated organizational structure for
managing resources during complex incidents. A good
organizational system also establishes the authority
structure and communications channels necessary for
effective incident management, so that responders know
whom they report to and whom they should communicate
with.

Technology is used for communications and for data
collection and display. Effective communications systems
must be redundant, meaning that more than one
system should be available for voice and data communications.
For example, some fire departments that have
switched from a UHF or VHF system to an 800-MHz
system have kept their VHF or UHF system active as a
back up in case the 800 system goes down. Other
departments use their commercial cellular systems, such
as the Sprint/Nextel push-to-talk capability, as a back up
to their private radio system.

Its important to protect communications equipment
from anticipated infrastructure losses due to natural disasters,
such as hurricanes and tornadoes, or direct attack
by terrorists, who may use an improvised explosive
device to destroy tower sites for the purpose of causing
confusion among first responders. Protective actions
may include isolating, hardening, monitoring and surveillance.
Additional information on protecting your
communications system can be found through the
National Infrastructure Protection Center or the
National Communications System Web sites.
If protection systems fail, have contingency plans in
place in the event the communications infrastructure
gets blown down or blown up. If your technology
becomes unusable, that does not mean your response is
incapacitated. It simply means that you must rely more
on the structure and people that make up your command
and control system. For example, you may have to
have to take people away from tactical operations to
deliver messages that would have been delivered via
radio or other technology.

CHANNEL DISTRIBUTION
An incidents communications channels should follow
the incidents organizational structure. For example,
complex incidents that involve joint operations between
several jurisdictions and disciplines require a multiplechannel,
multiple-systems approach to communications
management. When large numbers of units and personnel
are involved in an incident, we cant manage communications
on one or two frequencies. When more
than 20 people are trying to talk on the same channel,
congestion will occur and critical messages will not be
transmitted or will be transmitted too late. Therefore,
organize communications resources into command,
operations and logistics channels or systems. Figure 2
shows the communications structure for one command
channel, three operations channels and a separate logistical
system.

Organizing communications resources in this manner
requires a different way of thinking about channel distribution.
Most fire departments
distribute channels
by department rather than
by function. Consider two
departments that provide
mutual or automatic aid on
a regular basis as an example.
One department might
use two radio channels,
while a neighboring department
might use three different
ones. Both departments
probably have some type of
commercial cellular service
in use as well. Rather
than distributing the five channels and two systems by
department, the five radio channels should be organized
into two command channels and three operations channels
and shared between the departments. The commercial
cellular system should be designated as the logistics
system for all logistics-related communications. This
minimizes the potential for channel congestion on the
command and operations channels, since a large percentage
of incident communications relates to logistics.
Every department, from a small rural volunteer fire
department to a major metropolitan department, can
use their communications resources more effectively by
distributing those resources by function rather than by
jurisdiction.

This is very different from typical communications
systems, which are often isolated and uncoordinated
and use separate structures and systems for each
agency. However, if different jurisdictions and disciplines
are going to work together in an integrated,
coordinated fashion, their communications must be
integrated and coordinated as well. Get more information
on how to develop regionally integrated communications
systems and operations in the IAFC
publication Top Priority: A Fire Service Guide to
Interoperable Communications, which can be downloaded
at www.iafc.org.

CROSS-TRAINING
People are the most critical component of an effective
command and control system. People use technology
within an incidents organizational structure to direct
resources, accomplish strategic objectives and deliver an
effective, well-coordinated response, so its important
to train our people in multi-jurisdictional and multidisciplinary
response operations because they are much
more dynamic, ambiguous and complicated than simple
incident response operations. The complexity of a
response increases as more jurisdictions, disciplines and
levels of government are included in the response
(Figure 3).

It is imperative that joint training between response
agencies takes place so people have some experience
working with other agencies and so they share a common
understanding of the components of missionoriented
command and control. If this training and
experience is not provided before a complex incident
occurs, then it is unlikely the structure or technology
employed as part of command and control can compensate
for this deficiency, which will result in an ineffective
and uncoordinated response.

Development of a mission-oriented doctrine of command
and control must take place in the context of
regional and joint operations. Relevant jurisdictions and
disciplines should work together and outline how to
structure complex incidents, how to integrate or connect
technology for communications and data collection,
and how people will train together in order to gain
experience in joint operations. Mission-oriented command
and control places mission accomplishment above
everything else, especially the competition, turf wars
and self-sufficiency that exist to some degree in all emergency
response organizations.

KNOW YOUR THREATS
For an agency to determine its command and control
requirements, it must first examine potential threat scenarios
(Figure 4). After deciding on which threat scenarios
to use, the agency must answer several questions:
What is the anticipated impact of the threat? Will
response operations require resources from other jurisdictions,
disciplines and levels of government? What other
agencies will be able to provide the necessary resources?
Finally, what are the requirements in terms of structure,
people and technology for an effective response?

COMMAND, CONTROL & COMMS:
ON-SCENE APPLICATIONS
Applying a system of command and control involves
planning, action and impact assessment, and communications
is a critical element for each step in this process.
The ability to plan for and establish a course of action is
based on information about the incident, which is
passed from operational units to incident commanders
(ICs). The ICs use their situational awareness to develop
the overall mission, strategic objectives and the incident
action plan. They can then order resources into action
to accomplish the mission and objectives. At appropriate
intervals, these units report back to the ICs with an
assessment of their progress. Based on this information,
the ICs reassess their plan. This is a continuous cycle
(see Figure 5), which recurs until there are no objectives
left and the mission is accomplished.

Figure 1: Components of a Command and Control System
Structure: ICS NIHS
People: Training, Experience
Technology: Protection, Redundancy
Doctrine: Mission-Oriented Command and Control

Figure 2: Chart of Multiple Channel Operations

Figure 3: Level of Complexity in Emergency
Response Operations

Level 1
Single
discipline
responding
within a single
jurisdiction

Level 2
Multiple
disciplines
responding
within a single
jurisdiction

Level 3
Multiple
disciplines and
jurisdictions
responding within a
single jurisdiction

Level 4
Multiple disciplines,
jurisdictions and
levels of government
responding
throughout multiple
jurisdictions

Figure 4: Development of C2 Requirements:
Threat
Scenario

Impact or
Damage

Operations
Simple/Complex

C2
Requirements

Figure 5: Command and Control Process

Planning to Action to Impact

Figure 6: Chart of Areas of Operations

They can then order
resources into action
to accomplish the mission
and objectives.

Additionally, operational units must have the ability
to share and exchange information in order to coordinate
their activities. This is true for all levels of command
and control: strategic, operational, tactical and
unit level (see Figure 6, Cedergardh 2002). Strategiclevel
workers must prioritize resources among operations,
which may be geographic areas of operation or
separate incidents. Operational-level command and
control establishes the mission and strategic objectives
for the incident and assigns units to the operation.
Tactical-level workers coordinate units, which helps
reduce conflict among different jurisdictions or disciplines.
Unit commanders manage the performance of
assigned tasks and report the impact of their actions to
the next higher level of command and control.

CONCLUSION
Technology is a critical component of command and
control, but without a good understanding of what
command and control is really all about, technology is
wasted. Effective use of communications technology
results in a faster command and control cycle. The
process of planning, action and impact-assessment
occurs more rapidly and more effectively with high levels
of technological support. High levels of technological
support can overcome inadequate operational
planning. However, high levels of planning and cooperation
are the only thing that can overcome low levels
of technological support. Anticipate and plan for complex
incidents that will involve multiple jurisdictions,
disciplines and levels of government. By planning for
the use of a common command and control system,
and making the best possible use of your communications
technology, you will be able to get the right
resources to the right place at the right time.

William Pessemier is the executive communications systems advisor for the
International Association of Fire Chiefs and the author of Top Priority: A Fire
Service Guide to Interoperable Communications. Before retiring from a 25-
year career in the fire service, Pessemier was the fire chief in Littleton, Colo.,
where he served as incident commander for the Columbine school shootings.
He has a Masters degree in public administration from the University of
Illinois and is currently working on a doctorate degree.

References

The 9/11 Commission Report. (2004). New York, NY: National Commission on Terrorist 
Attacks Upon the United States.

Brown, A. L. (1999). Jointness Begins at Home: Responding to Domestic Incidents. Joint 
Forces Quarterly(Spring), 106-111.

Curtis, R. J., & Campbell, D. E. Architecture: The Road to Interoperability.
Fairbanks,W. P. (1999). Information Superiority:What Is It? How to Achieve It? 
Cambridge: Harvard University, Center for Information
Policy Research.

Faughn, A.W. (2002). Interoperability: Is It Achievable? Cambridge: Harvard University, 
Center for Information Policy Research.

Guide to Radio Communications Strategies and Products. (2003). Rome, NY: National 
Institute of Justice.

Hamilton, B.-A. (1999). PSWN Program Analysis of Fire and EMS Communications 
Interoperability.Washington, D.C.: Public Safety
Wireless Network.

Hura,M. (2000). A Broad Definition of Interoperability. In Interoperability: A Continuing 
Challenge. Santa Monica: Rand.

LaTourrette,T., Peterson,D. J., Bartis, J.T., Jackson, B. A., & Houser, A. (2003). 
Protecting Community Responders: Community Views
of Safety and Health Risks and Personnel Protection Needs. Santa Monica: Rand 
Corporation.

Levels of Information Systems Interoperability. (1998). Department of Defense, 
Architecture Working Group.

Mayer-Schonberger, V. Emergency Communications: The Quest for Interoperability in 
the United States and Europe.

National Incident Management System. (2004).Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security.

Pollard, N. A., & Garwin, T. (2003). Project Responder Interim Report: Emergency 
Responders' Needs, Goals, and Priorities: Memorial
Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism.

Radio Communications for the Fire Service: A Planning Guide for Obtaining the 
Communications System You Need for Enhanced Safety
and Emergency Preparedness. (2004).

Realizing the Potential of C4I: Fundamental Challenges. (1999).Washington, D.C.: 
National Academy Press.

Statement of Requirements for Public Safety Wireless Communications & 
Interoperability. (2004).Washington, D.C.: The Safecom Program,
Department of Homeland Security.