Part IV—Future Implications
Focus on the Money— Fires in Transition
When Jesse James was asked why he robbed banks, he supposedly replied: "That's where the money is!" If up to 72 percent of all fire fatalities occur during fires in transition, we should focus future studies and training there.
Previous recommendations to pay more attention to problems in fire crew cohesion have been very general (Putnam 1995; Tri-Data 1998; USDA Forest Service 2001). See appendix B for a more detailed discussion of these recommendations. Future work should concentrate on ways to rapidly establish crew cohesion within the contexts of different types of fire transitions.
Creating Context— Developing a Classification of Transition Fires
Initially, studies need to focus on creating a more precise language for fire crews, crew bosses, and fire managers. This language is needed by crew bosses to quickly establish intercrew cohesion before starting an extended attack. The first step in creating this language is to develop a precise classification system of the types of transition fires.
As the word is now used in firefighting, transition refers to very complex changing fire events as well as to changing command structures. The first task is to describe the properties of different types of transition fires. From these descriptions, a classification scheme can be constructed to provide crew bosses with a shared language. This shared language will permit them to distinguish between different types of transitions that are now lumped into one word. With new classifications of transition fires, crew bosses will be able to talk precisely. Using a common language will give crew bosses a common understanding of how to act and react together, depending on the type of transition fire they identify
Because the present terminology used for fire transitions is not precise, individuals are free to come up with their own interpretation of the fire situation. These different interpretations make it extremely difficult for different crews and their leaders to know how to act and react collectively (with intercrew cohesion) before starting an extended attack. Studies can construct a specific typology of transition stages in wildland fires. Once this typology is complete, it needs to be taught to all firefighters, especially crew leaders and fire managers. A shared language for the different types of fire transitions will allow firefighters to place their collective actions in a common context.
Writing a Common Playbook—Connecting Context and Action
An analogy to baseball may help. All baseball players share a complex typology of baseball situations—full count, bases loaded with two outs, and so forth. These types of baseball scenarios are like types of fire transition situations. Not only do the players recognize the different situations, they also have a shared "playbook" that calls for specific strategy and tactics depending on the different types of situations. The playbook dictates when to walk a player, when to steal, or where to throw the ball. A common playbook for different types of transition fires would specify what actions to take depending on the type of fire situation. When there is a shared typology and a common playbook, even strangers can quickly play a game together.
Finding the Unwritten Typology and Unwritten Playbook
My previous studies of field crews and their supervisors demonstrate that it is reasonable to assume that the fire community already has an unwritten classification of the types of transition fires as well as an unwritten playbook. Good crew bosses use these unwritten typologies of fire transitions and the unwritten playbook to guide their actions as they establish and maintain crew cohesion when fires are in transition. Every year there are thousands of different types of transition wildfires. The vast majority of these situations are recognized and the potential crew cohesion problems associated with them are successfully managed. The successes come about because crews and their leaders are using this unwritten typology to recognize fire transitions and the unwritten playbook to select strategies and tactics.
In the physical sciences, classification schemes or typologies have to be constructed using the technical language of scientists. Birds, rocks, and trees don't have their own language. However, in cultural sciences, we can construct typologies of fire transition based on the language actually used by experienced wildland fire crews and their leaders. For this project, we can record the natural language typology actually used by crews and their leaders during different types of fire transitions (Schutz 1962). This typology can then be taught to all wildland firefighters. The playbook can be developed by recording the actions (strategy and tactics) used by good leaders during different types of fire transitions (Garfinkel 1967; Gumperz and Hymes 1972; Rose 1992; and Driessen 1997).
Simulation training for wildland firefighters can be based on recognizing types of fire transitions and using strategy and tactics identified in the playbook. This training can also be designed to test future wildland fire crew bosses and managers. During training, it will be possible to determine who does or does not have the ability to identify types of transition fires and to practice using the playbook to establish intracrew and intercrew cohesion before starting extended attack (Klein 2001).
Studies of the sort described in this paper almost always produce unexpected discoveries. These discoveries will lead to exciting new solutions to current problems (Reichenbach 1953; Glaser and Strauss 1967). As studies proceed, it will be important to take advantage of these discoveries. I would expect a variety of new study proposals and policy recommendations to emerge during the course of the work. Many of the proposals will focus on ways to accelerate intracrew cohesion in the different types of fire crews discussed in appendix A.
