Quote:.... whether or not it can be considered a success or a failure has to be viewed in light of the facts - including whether or not they still use it.True. However, whether or not they still use it as a measure of success or failure has to be tempered by the facts of why they are moving away from it.
For example, traditional engine/truck deployment is generally viewed as being the "optimal" course and would therefore be considered a "successful" deployment plan. Many moons ago, they transitioned from this traditional engine/truck deployment to the Quint/Midi concept. Can one reasonably infer that the engine/truck deployment was a "failure" since they abandoned it? From what I understand of their history, the answer would be "no" as the move was clearly not due to the traditional deployment being a "failure", but rather the product of economics. As such, the reasons for the move away from the Quint/Midi concept has to be considered when determining "success" or "failure" of that deployment.
On the flip side, continuing with a particular course of action doesn't necessarily mean it's a "successful" one. How often do we see Chiefs or public officials stick with something even though it may be pretty clear that it's not going to pan out, oftentimes because they don't want to admit it was a "bad idea"?
Facebook
Google
Reddit
Twitter