The New Zealand Co-ordinated Incident Management System (CIMS)[1] is New Zealand's system for managing the response to an incident involving multiple responding agencies. Its developers based the system on the United States' Incident Command System (ICS) - developed in the 1970s - and on other countries' adaptations of ICS, such as Australia's Australasian Inter-Service Incident Management System (AIIMS).[2]
The CIMS is intended as a generic framework, to be adapted for each situation by those involved in the response. For example, while there are four management functions, the incident itself determines the size of the incident management team. In an isolated incident, a single officer may perform all of functions; in a very complex incident each function could be sub-divided. Instead, CIMS emphasises consistent terminology, a single multi-agency Incident Control Point for each site or, where possible, wider incident, and planning tools across all agencies. For example, the term "Assembly Area" means the same thing in every incident - although there may well be several Assembly Areas in more complex incidents. Likewise, all trained responders know the roles and responsibilities of the Logistics Manager.
CIMS was initially designed in the late 1990s to be applied to all levels of emergency response management, similar to the USA National Incident Management System (NIMS) and to the UK's Gold Silver Bronze command system, however the original CIMS manual clearly articulated only the incident/site level of response co-ordination.
CIMS was fully reviewed in 2014 subsequent to the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes, the 2010 Pike River Mine disaster, and the 2011 MV Rena grounding. The revised 2014 manual incorporates higher levels of incident and emergency-response co-ordination, consistent with the arrangements and responsibilities outlined in the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan[3] (the National CDEM Plan). In some senses, the National CDEM Plan resembles the United States Department of Homeland Security's National Response Framework.
the revised approach to CIMS puts more emphasis on management and co-ordination processes, such as the internationally standard intelligence cycle and a more mature planning process, than it does on co-ordination structures, as such.
A distinguishing factor from other English-speaking systems is the use of the term control rather than command, as in the title "Incident Controller" for "Incident Commander". By implication, this was designed to emphasise that the incident management team is primarily a focused on co-ordinating the response by independent agencies, rather than ordering responders in a militaristic manner. This is complicated to a degree, as the person in charge of the operations function, usually an Operations Manager, does have the authority to command agencies to act.
CIMS is based around several background concepts that provide the basis for the operational elements.
CIMS aims to deliver:
Vision: Safer communities through integrated emergency management.[2]
Mission: CIMS will create a legacy of safer communities through a proved, reliable, user-friendly, effective and efficient up-to-date [incident management] system. The system will be fully integrated and flexible and have the confidence of the public.[2]
In addition to the principles there are three supporting intentions:
The terms command, control and co-ordination play a big role within CIMS. These terms help define the roles and responsibilities between incident managers that may direct responders from multiple organisations and line managers who act within a single agency. Control operates horizontally between agencies, whereas Command operates vertically within an agency. Co-ordination describes the overall cohesion of agencies working together with defined responsibilities.
A lead agency is the agency with a mandate to manage the response to an incident through legislation, under protocols, by agreement, or because it has the expertise and experience. The lead agency establishes control to co-ordinate the response of all agencies involved.
The lead agency may change between risk reduction, readiness, response, and recovery. It may also change as the incident progresses, if the required authority or expertise changes. When the lead agency cannot be readily identified, response agencies may adopt a joint ‘Unified Control’ structure (see below).
Some general examples of lead agencies:
| Incident Type | Lead Agency | Basis | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Earthquake | National Emergency Management Agency | Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 | |
| Animal and plant pests and diseases (biosecurity) | Ministry for Primary Industries | Biosecurity Act 1993, Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 | |
| Infectious human disease (pandemic) | Ministry of Health | Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006, Heath Act 1956 | |
| Urban fire | Fire and Emergency New Zealand | Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 | |
| Terrorism | New Zealand Police | Crimes Act 1961, International Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act 1987, Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 | |
| Marine oil spill | Maritime New Zealand | Maritime Transport Act 1994 |
A support agency is an agency that provides support to the lead agency in a response. The lead agency tasks and co-ordinates support agencies’ resources and actions. The type of incident determines which support agencies are involved, and these agencies may change as the response progresses. While an agency may have the lead for a particular response, support agencies often have statutory responsibilities and specific objectives of their own, which the lead agency needs to accommodate. The lead agency is responsible for ensuring arrangements and plans are in place prior to incidents where they will have the lead. Support agencies are responsible for assisting in the development of these. Integration of support agencies into the response is a fundamental responsibility of lead agencies.
Unified Control is when the control of an incident is shared between two or more agencies by agreement through a combined decision-making body. The command appointments for each agency establish an agreed concept of operations and a single Action Plan. Unified Control is usually applied when:
Agencies applying Unified Control establish a joint co-ordination centre (CC), with key appointments filled by the most appropriate personnel from any agency. Agency command appointments do not have to be present at all times, but need to come together to agree on key decisions.
Other than a combined Control function, the joint CC follows usual CIMS practices.
Control is responsible for the overall incident progression, and is performed by the lead agency. The Incident Controller (IC) has overall accountability for the incident. The IC has three main responsibilities:
The Operations function oversees delivery of the Action Plan, which means making sure that responders are being as productive as possible. Operations is generally responsible for operational command of resources, in order to fulfil the objectives set by the IC. This means allocating agencies specific functions in their areas of expertise, monitoring their performance, and providing a communication link between the responders and the other elements of the IMT, especially Logistics.
The Planning and Intelligence functions are responsible for forecasting the incident development, anticipating likely needs and drafting the Action Plan. This role is strategic in scope. "This incident will go on for another 12 hours, we will need lighting, food and shelter for the expected rain".
The Logistics function ensures that the operation can continue by ensuring that there are sufficient resources on-site and related functions.
Despite having had a national fire service since 1976, and a national police force since the late 19th Century, there was no consistency in the management of the response to emergencies. Each agency had its own communication system, jargon, hierarchy and attitude towards a particular type of emergency.
Development of CIMS was also indirectly influenced by a major review of New Zealand's emergency services, which took place in the mid-1990s.[4] This review recommended that agencies should look at working closer together, in order to provide a more integrated service to New Zealand communities.
Road-vehicle crashes that do not involve fire show how confusion could arise. The Fire Service Act 1975 grants authority to the New Zealand Fire Service for fires, as well as all other emergencies where it feels it can render assistance.[5] The Police, however, have a common-law duty to protect life and property, as well as statutory enforcement authority of transport legislation. Likewise, the local ambulance service may feel it has primary responsibility, because it is responsible for the well-being of anyone injured by the incident. With each agency thinking that it is in charge, effective co-ordination may become difficult.
In 1996, the New Zealand Fire Service began to promote the idea of implementing an incident management system that was common across all emergency response and management agencies. In March 1997, a workshop of 25 representatives from the New Zealand Police, New Zealand Fire Service, the National Rural Fire Authority, New Zealand Ambulance Board, Civil Defence, local government, New Zealand Defence Force, New Zealand Forest Owners Association and the Department of Conservation was held.[2]
This initial workshop developed the vision, mission and project scope.[2] Since then, the system, nationwide training using consistent training materials and the system's implementation have been carried out.
By 1998, much of the system was developed. Two levels of training were decided upon, at awareness and practitioner levels. Training was develivered through the NZQA's National Qualifications Framework, with the Fire & Rescue Services Industry Training Organisation (FRISTO) nominated as the Standards Setting Body and holding authority for national moderation.
One unique element of CIMS, is that the practitioner level programmes must be delivered in a multi-agency environment.[6]
As well as training individual responders, a wider level of co-ordination between the emergency services was required in order for New Zealand's emergency services to develop towards the model of comprehensive emergency management, as envisaged by the 1995 civil defence emergency management review.[7] During the late 1990s, territorial authorities aligned to form Emergency Management Groups (now known as Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups), in anticipation of legislative change promoting a move away from purely response-focused planning.[8]
In addition to efforts by local government, Emergency Services Coordination Committees were established to enhance operational effectiveness, clarify local capabilities and establish lead agencies for circumstances where statutory authority was unclear, as in the example above. Two examples of committees that remain in existence include those in the Counties-Manukau[9] and Central Hawkes Bay[10] areas.
The second edition of CIMS builds on the first by incorporating experience gained since 1998. In particular, it reflects the lessons identified from the responses to a number of large-scale and complex emergencies that occurred in New Zealand from 2010 to 2012. These emergencies emphasised the importance of CIMS, but also subjected the system to new levels of examination, and identified areas where it needs strengthening. Accordingly, this edition of CIMS also gives effect to recommendations from formal reviews and inquiries into those emergency responses, including:
This revised CIMS establishes a modular and scalable framework for consistent response at any level – from a small, single agency response to a larger, multi-agency response that may require co-ordination at the community or incident level or higher. CIMS enables agencies to plan for, train and conduct responses in a consistent manner, without being prescriptive. With this approach CIMS is an essential tool in New Zealand's preparedness to effectively respond to emergencies.
CIMS is to be used by all emergency services, government agencies and management agencies, including those agencies involved in the 2012-2014 review:
In recent years, CIMS has also been recognised as best practice for implementing management structures for response and recovery. Many organisations outside those identified above are now adopting CIMS - including lifeline utilities, universities,[11] and businesses.[6] The key benefits are adopting a recognised standard, and being able to interoperate with other agencies during response to complex events that involve more than one agency.
New Zealand Land Search and Rescue Inc (LandSAR) has widely adopted the use of CIMS.[12]
Training is provided by a number of public sector, commercial organisations and NZQA private training establishments. CIMS 2 is widely available from a number of vendors. CIMS 4 can only be delivered as a multi-agency course - usually led in rotation by Police, Fire, Ambulance or the local Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) authority. For more information, contact your local Civil Defence Emergency Management authority for more information.
CIMS training is registered on the National Qualifications Framework, run by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.
More in-depth study into concepts of Incident Management is available from Massey University in a third-year paper on Incident Command Systems 130301.[15]