FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => General Interest => Topic started by: birty on April 12, 2007, 11:29:53 PM
-
Has anyone got some idea as to what activities etc fulfill elements of a PDR for Firefighter to Crew Manager. (I assume we are all doing the same PDR nationally or is it silly of me to assume such logic?) Otherwords can anyone put into English for me what actions fulfill the individual criteria!!
-
Good to know im not on my own!
The fact of the matter is I don't think there is a right or wrong answer it seems to be a lottery! As you will se by my posts on this site I too am struggling with all of this nonsense.
IPDS/IRMP/ADC/BAR rank to role its all gibberish to me!
-
You lot need to get with the lingo!
PDR is the way forward in dealing with fires- you fill in your own record to say you are fantastic at everything and the graph goes green- this means you are competent!!!!!!
PQA's- another excellent method of rescuing casualties from a burning building- remember and demonstrate the correct PQA's in the right circumstances or else it doesn't count!! IE Good Practical Firefighting skills and experience goes for nothing.
Next you lot will be saying that you are worried the direction that FRS are taking!!
-
PDR = personal development record. Therefore you do not 'do' a PDR. You do the development and the record is just that. It follows the PDP (as it may be called), or personal development plan. As these have the word personal at the beginning then they should not be national, not even service, nor local. The should be personal. So take a RDS CM, who is also in the WDs as a Ff. He/she is promoted to CM WDS, their PDP will be different (probably just some top up knowledge elements) than a peer who is a WDS Ff moving to CM with no experience of management, or incident command. There are a set of development modules, see www.ipds.co.uk, which give the learning outcomes expected of any development for each role,. What the individual requires depends on their existing skills and knowledge. Unlike the old FRS system where you went on a Crew Command course at the FSC, whether you needed it, or not. I was sent on a ECCC (e = experienced) as I had been an LFf for 5 years, newly promoted to SubO I had to attend the WCC (w = watch). So a week of being told what I already knew, followed by another 5 of the same spread out. I had already done management learning (and qualifications) so all the Maslow, Herzberg et all , that I was made to 'learn' was a waste of my time and my FRS's money. The incident command training was useful, though again nothing I hadn't already done in-house, the exercises great, though gain I had been in charge of up to 8 pump fires as a T/SubO and many smaller incidents in the years before, as well as exercises. So the old national 'give it to all' was no great shakes. Using a PDP I should have gone for a one week ICS module and that would have been it. I would record my activities in my PDR, which would need assessing, then internal and external verification of quality, to demonstrate that I was competent before they pay me as such. The old system - Thursday FF, Friday LFf. No assessment of your ability, no record of your development needs, no record of the development given and no record of how you proved you could do the job. Next opportunity for the FRS to decide if you were actually any good beingt he SubO application process.
Fill in your own activities the 'graph (what graph?)' goes green so you are competent? Where is the assesor, verifier et al in this equation? Sorry not the new system's fault but your (clearly) failing FRS. The old system had none of that anyway - simply 'here's your eppaulettes, get on with it'. Oh, and by the way, we won't be bothering to check if you are competent, or what training you actually need.
-
Fireftrm
You are right about the failings of the old system but at least the statutory exams ensured that at some stage the individual had proved their technical knowledge to perform the duties of the rank. The Station officer exam was fairly demanding and wide ranging, How is this measured under the new system?
-
Technical knowledge to perfom the rank? Really? Yes they showed some such knowledge, but not ability to use it. How many were able to pass the exmas, but made the most appaling managers and incident commanders. Clearly the old system had its faults and the new is not perfect either. Few, if any, FRS ever used the exams as a promotion test. The exam simply allowed you to apply and that was all. The service then put in systems to examine the candidates for the jobs. The new system has the ADc to test potential for promotion, then the service should use role related assessments to determine which of the successful ADC candidates are suitable for the available jobs. The give them the development role and PDP. The RRAs that I have seen look pretty much like th eold style promotion processes. Allt hat is missing is the technical knowledge tests, however looka tt he knowledge and understanding of the Ff and WM NOS and you will see that the level of knowledge required now far exceeds what was needed before - not that many people ever actually take the time to see what they should know, nor do enough assessors/services examine this well enough either.
-
When you say all that is missing is the technical knowledge tests, does this mean there are some in the pipeline ?
-
Within E.Sussex to move from FF to Crew commander/manager we have now got the ITOP (can miss this section out if you have the promotional exams at moment but not next year) followed by the ADC ( a full day of assesments with you as an airport shift manager [not fire service related]with actors being the public/staff etc) and if you get through that then a 2 Pump practical scenario at Training center where you take role of oic. Then a 45 min interview in front of panel of 3, with subjects ranging from ops' procedures to equality and management issues etc . Then a 10 minute presentation on a ops' subject i.e asbestos on the fireground and oics cosiderations. If succesful you undertake vector assesments either in the new role or before. Then development pay until all boxes ticked and still experience and tech knowledge is not questioned at any stage seems to count for nothing!! Not saying this is right or wrong but lots of work load , expense on all involved including the relevant authorities. Were exams really that bad or were bad officers never taken to task?? How many posts has the introduction of IPDS created nationally and to what cost and still all brigades adapting it differently.
Hell of a lot of work/ stress for candidates for very small financial gain. Go on say you shouldnt be doing it for money, just the love of the job etc etc.
Cor thats better got it off my chest!!!
-
It all seems very complex, expensive and time consuming. In the old days you had the promotion exams which for the Lf and Sub O included a practical testincluding drills and a presentation. Then you were interviewed for the post. Samething but different, were there bad officers, yes. Are there bad officers today? I would guess yes. was the system open to being manipulated? yes. Is the current system open to manipulation? Probably yes but more difficult to detect.
I suspect the only difference is the new system is more PC than the old system.
-
I have a question that was put to me by someone who talks a lot of sense-
"If this was your own company, and using what would be your own money, you had to promote someone within your organisation- would you use the current ADC system for selecting the best candidate?"
I think we know what the answer will be for most people and we need to look at this and develop it to make it work for the sake of all FRS's
-
Interestingly enough I am aware of lots of people who are and have gone though this process. However, ask a basic question such as "how would you know that a DRM or WRM was in a builidng or what are the components are for a F/F shafts" and I get blank responses. Still once a dinosaur always a dinosaur.
-
Ask the same question of many, many time served Ffs and get the same answers.........."what the *x!/* is that all about?" Indeed even I had to work out what DRM and WRM meant as they aren't acronyms I have ever come across, in fact I have never been taught, or use, the M word, only the first two. So the old process ddin't work either? (I have LFf, SubO and StnO passes plus MIFireE and FSC courses since................)
To Mike - that may have ben your process (interview only) to promote someone with the exams, it certainly wasn't the way we did it. We had an assessment centre, written test (usually a report to write, or letter) about 1 hour, operational assessment (question based on you as IC of an incident) about 1 hour, discussion group about 1 hour, presentation - 10 minutes to 30 minutes. Time for presentation and level of incident command, letter/report writing depended on level of promotion centre. Under the RRA we will be using a similar process...........
-
.--/..../-.--/ -../---/ .--/./ .-/.-../.-../ -/.-/.-../-.-/ ../-./ -.-./---/-../.?
-
well everybody else seems to be writing in code. DRM would throw me till I thought about it, RRA has me beat. Now what was the title of this thread?
What we need is a PDR to show progress with the PDP which may be taken into account at the ADC and measured against the NOS (where there is one and where there isnt we manage ok without) .
IPDS, IRMP CDM and bar. Learning PDQ what?
-
Im afraid I don't have anything positive to write about this job anymore, so look away now if your a 'moderniser'
I recently had my PDR at work and I didn't understand any of it, didn't agree with comments that my manager made and thought they were unfair. I therefore refused to sign it and have been told I face disciplinary for not maintaining my development? Im so lost you wouldn't believe it! I regularly take part in drills and training so how can he say that? Am I not permitted to question the comments of a 'manager'?
I have no idea what DRM or WRM or anything else means. I realy have lost interest in all this gibbierish, and so have the majority of the Ffs on my station! morale has never been so low. Sickness has increased dramaticly and two lads are leaving.
When we had a meeting with our manager he told us if we didn't like it then leave. So how has this once fantasic job gone this way?
-
Kurnal - I made sure that the acronym RRA was only used after the full term was written, read my prior post!
Interesting that some have taken DRM and WRM to be part of the 'modernisation' just because they are acronyms? My point hrown perfectly back at jokar with support from others?
As to a PDR that isn't understood, or agreed, this seems to be a serious failing in the system employed by that FRS. It is meant to be a review of the individuals development, against their development plan PDP). So there should be nothing in it that is of a surprise, after all the development will have been ongoing with both employee and assessor party to it. The review will look at how it is progressing, what needs to be added/signed off to/from the PDP and a new review date set. What you are saying here, Pete, suggests a complete failure of understanding by both sides of what PDP and PDR is about.
-
Here is my thoughts on all this IPDS, PDR, PDP, ABC, CNN,HRT, STD ( sorry- I digress!) and I will keep it simple so like- minded people understand.
Does IPDS make better, safer and more competent Fire fighters - NO
Does the filling in of a record such as PDR pro mean that you can actually do what you said you did to a competent standard - NO
Do people going for promotion fully understand the PQA process - NO
More importantly, do people have faith in the PQA process for ADC's - NO
Do experienced fire personnel of all ranks who are in 15 years and over have confidence in the operational experience of some CM, WM's due to the lack of exposure to operational incidents - NO
Do I believe in the modernisation agenda - YES
Are we doing it right - NO
-
Here is my thoughts on all this IPDS, PDR, PDP, ABC, CNN,HRT, STD ( sorry- I digress!) and I will keep it simple so like- minded people understand.
Does IPDS make better, safer and more competent Fire fighters - NO
Does the filling in of a record such as PDR pro mean that you can actually do what you said you did to a competent standard - NO
Do people going for promotion fully understand the PQA process - NO
More importantly, do people have faith in the PQA process for ADC's - NO
Do experienced fire personnel of all ranks who are in 15 years and over have confidence in the operational experience of some CM, WM's due to the lack of exposure to operational incidents - NO
Do I believe in the modernisation agenda - YES
Are we doing it right - NO
I think I can safely say that I agree with that !!!
-
Back to the old adage there are three ways of doing things the right way, the wrong way and the way the fire service does it.
-
In relation to my previous rant, I forgot to mention the fact that a well filled application form that hits all the PQA's and the person spec on paper means much more than an experienced person who everyone and their granny knows can do the job standing on their head!
If we rely too much on what the candidate says they can do on paper - we will end up with paper managers with no substance and no credibility, except from their fellow paper managers who promoted them!!!