Quote:I can only agree with the last part of that statement to a degree. Whether or not they still use it may depend entirely on who the current administration is. Personal opinions of the Chief often dictate the direction of the department, regardless of success or failure.Yes, that's why I stated it the way I did, which was that assessment of the success or failure of any particular tactic has to INCLUDE whether it continues to be used. It isn't the only criteria, but neither can it be disregarded. Words are important, and need to be read and understood in their context and entirety.
It should also be noted that conditions change, and tactics typically must change with them. A system of company deployments that worked well in 1950 would, in all likelihood, be less than efficient or optimal in 2014. Cities that do at least periodic top-to-bottom reviews of how they do things stand a better chance of meaningful progress than cities that do things the same way they did them 100 years ago . . . All the time saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I submit that they have no clue whether it's "broke" or not, and odds are they don't want to know. We hate change, and change is expensive. So cities that have explored other ways to do things are at least giving it their best effort. We have tried a few things over the years here in Syracuse, and while many of them have been (and continue to be) successful, others were not. We need to be honest about what works and what doesn't, and move on. It's certainly correct that administrations, both within the department and at City Hall, can and do drastically affect what happens. Been there, done that . . . But even the most inept administrators would be hard-pressed to discontinue a system if it saved money, improved fire protection, or both. Performance and results count, even if they aren't the only criteria.
Facebook
Google
Reddit
Twitter