Author Topic: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal (Read 23391 times)

crashndash · « **Reply #25 on:** September 21, 2009, 05:15:57 PM »

so what ever happened to the bastion of Resource Management....AIIMS, and the span of control concept.

You know....you can only effectively manage 5 resources before u sectorise etc etc.... or do we conveniently forgoe principles when there is $$ concerned?..

GOs are pissed with the way it was dumped on them at the last minute, with little time for discussion with the person concerned (who did the dumping)......with management skills like that, no wonder its behind the popular opinuion curve and unlikely to catch up.

Alan J · « **Reply #26 on:** September 22, 2009, 01:51:50 AM »

Quote from: crashndash on September 21, 2009, 05:15:57 PM

so what ever happened to the bastion of Resource Management....AIIMS, and the span of control concept.

You know....you can only effectively manage 5 resources before u sectorise etc etc.... or do we conveniently forgoe principles when there is $$ concerned?..

The counting of beans is done in base 10, not base 5.
Therefore it is not subject to arcane operational concerns such as span of control.

And yes, a great many principles are forgone by a great many people when there is $$ involved...

cheers

Darren · « **Reply #27 on:** September 22, 2009, 02:19:39 AM »

I can see a lot more people opting to stay at the yellow helmet level.

fridgemagnet · « **Reply #28 on:** September 22, 2009, 12:35:16 PM »

we are still talking about a document that may or may not exist. Well my money is on it doesn't exist.

As we would sure have a GO who is part of this forum with the document and they may or may not have a available to them a scanner that would allow them scan and post the document concerned.

If they are going to be putting more on the red helmets guess what logic or in the CFS case fuzzy logic tells me that yellow helmets will be getting a lot more piled on top of them. I be sticking to what I have got.

Mike · « **Reply #29 on:** September 22, 2009, 01:53:19 PM »

Our captain mentioned that the documentation had been sighted at a group meeting, but was not allowed to be released.... apparently it promptly left with the GO...

tft · « **Reply #30 on:** September 22, 2009, 02:06:46 PM »

fridgemagnet it is out in the wild this document, I have seen it.
Not sure why it is a big secret
Oh, yes i am. the document plan is cr@p

Zippy · « **Reply #31 on:** September 22, 2009, 02:24:24 PM »

Its these sort of *severe* changes that CFS have filtered up in the past, and are continuing too...

i can hear those worms in the can wanting fresh air!!!

Darren · « **Reply #32 on:** September 22, 2009, 02:48:29 PM »

Yes I have also seen the document, its a PDF map with lines drawn around the proposed areas, from what I can see, lofty, kyeema, Onkaparinga, mundoo and victor group cease to exist, with brigades broken up and sent to other groups. As to the new names, I guess we will wait and see. Assuming all this goes ahead.

PJ · « **Reply #33 on:** September 22, 2009, 05:07:41 PM »

As the Fridgemagnet said surely somone has a copy that could be scanned?

all we need is someone with Balls .

Otherwise my theory of its all crap is TRUE

Hicksflat14 · « **Reply #34 on:** September 22, 2009, 05:13:18 PM »

From the map I have, it's as follows:

Group 1
Athelstone
Basket Range
Carey Gully
Cherryville
Greenhill
Montacute
Norton Summit / Ashton
Piccadilly
Summertown and District
Aldgate
Burnside
Stirling

Group 2
Belair
Blackwood
Cherry Gardens
Coromandel Valley
Eden Hills
Ironbank
Bradbury
Upper Sturt
Happy Valley

Group 3
Brukunga
Echunga
Hahndorf
Littlehampton
Mount Barker
Nairne
Bridgewater
Mylor
Lenswood / Forest Range
Lobethal
Oakbank / Balhannah
Woodside

Group 4
American River
Western Districts
Haines / Macgillivray
Kingscote
Parndana
Penneshaw & District
Wisanger

Group 5
Aldinga Beach
McLaren Vale
Range / Hope Forest
Sellicks
Willunga
Yundi
Blewitt Springs
Clarendon
Kangarilla
McLaren Flat
Morphett Vale
Seaford

Group 6
Mount Compass
Middleton
Port Elliot
Cape Jervis
Hay Flat
Inman Valley
Myponga District
Parawa
Rapid Bay & District
Yankalilla and District
Hindmarsh Valley
Lower Inman Valley
Waitpinga

Group 7
Ashbourne
Blackfellows Creek
Clayton
Langhorne Creek
Milang
Strathalbyn
Woodchester
Currency Creek
Meadows
Macclesfield
Goolwa

tft · « **Reply #35 on:** September 22, 2009, 06:03:18 PM »

Have a look at the map again, Burnside had no home.

jaff · « **Reply #36 on:** September 22, 2009, 06:07:58 PM »

The post list is correct, the map is slightly out!

tft · « **Reply #37 on:** September 22, 2009, 06:25:27 PM »

Just like the plan, slightly out

Zippy · « **Reply #38 on:** September 22, 2009, 06:27:32 PM »

Screw it, just merge Group 1 + 2 + 3...

mattb · « **Reply #39 on:** September 22, 2009, 08:58:40 PM »

Or just go Yankee style and get rid of Groups altogether, just brigades with their own chiefs their own budgets and their own set of rules - actually that almost sounds like the way some are run now.

Alan J · « **Reply #40 on:** September 22, 2009, 09:55:24 PM »

For thems as hasn't, I've applied the lists above to a map.
The mainland ones anyway. KI's boundaries are pretty much self-defining....

Anyway, it looks pretty much like the original.

In my opinion, some of the revisions make sense. Much of it does not.

Incidentally, the original was on A3 - not too many brigade or domestic
scanners would handle A3 I think.

Before this could be done, sect.68 of the SAFECOM Act would need to be complied
with - dissolving of SACFS organisations. To turn 12 into 6, 6 Groups would
have to be dissolved. the Act says mucho consultations with community, CFSVA &
members. Also says that the matter must be put to a vote at a public meeting.
However, it says the CO can ignore the results of any vote, but must provide a
written report to the minister... Methinks it would need to be a -very- good
business case put to community, MPs & minister to push this through without
handing the opposition a large knobbly stick with which to beat the Govt.

cheers

Zippy · « **Reply #41 on:** September 22, 2009, 10:06:48 PM »

Q: How will this affect established & upcoming Level 3 IMT Group Bases.

Q: Will there be a need to broaden the Group duty Officer role, to a North/south DO role...to ensure local knowledge is among duty officers...

Q: By how much will Volunteer Hours on Non-operational work increase? two fold??

Q: What are the chances of CFS pulling this off without stuffing up.

bittenyakka · « **Reply #42 on:** September 22, 2009, 10:30:07 PM »

Well this is starting to maek a fair bit of rational sense. it might even allow us to have a normal alarm system rather than a 4th alarm calling in group strike teams.

jaff · « **Reply #43 on:** September 22, 2009, 10:48:52 PM »

Quote from: bittenyakka on September 22, 2009, 10:30:07 PM

Well this is starting to maek a fair bit of rational sense. it might even allow us to have a normal alarm system rather than a 4th alarm calling in group strike teams.

These are proposed administrative boundaries nothing else, Cascading responses and strike teams would still function as (ab)normal.....I believe

bittenyakka · « **Reply #44 on:** September 22, 2009, 10:52:15 PM »

i mean more as currently a 4th alarm is a Strike team often from another group and hence not closest trucks. it would make it easier to have a 4th alarm be 2 more trucks 5th be 2 more etc.

Baxter · « **Reply #45 on:** September 23, 2009, 12:09:25 AM »

One region in discussion about changes in the boundries only five more to go till we have a sensible management system in place and common through all the regions

Desert Dweller · « **Reply #46 on:** September 23, 2009, 05:21:44 PM »

Alan J must have the Balls spoken about earlier. Has anyone noticed that these groups have more than twice the span of control 1:5 some are 1:12

?

Baxter · « **Reply #47 on:** September 23, 2009, 06:29:26 PM »

Span of control form operation point of view yes it has been exceeded. If we have 1 GO but how many DGO will there be.

If we have a group of 12 with 3 DGO's then the ratio is 1:4. The sad but highly like fact that this is driven by the almighty $ not from an operation point of view. From an ops point of view this has worked quite well in some of the other regions that have groups of 10 or more brigades quite well for the last few years. Maybe the groups with five or less brigade are not the flavour of the month as they are to expensive to run.

Pipster · « **Reply #48 on:** September 23, 2009, 07:32:33 PM »

True Mallee fire, but, if you look at Groups with large numbers of brigades, the bulk of those brigades attend less than 20 calls a year - often less than 10 calls a year, with perhaps one more brigade doing 50 calls a year, and maybe one doing 100 calls a year.

So some existing large groups do less calls as a group, than one busy Adelaide Hills brigade.

So while there are Groups with 20 odd brigades in them, the call out rate is much lower, and hence less operational work required by GO's.

Put 20 of the busy brigades together, then the GO's & DGO's can potentially have a massive operational & administrative workload!!

Pip

Alan J · « **Reply #49 on:** September 24, 2009, 12:06:41 PM »

Somebody can't read very well... I merely mapped out the list posted by Hicks
Flat. I didn't scan in The Map. Have only seen a copy - don't possess one.

In theory, these changes should make little difference to responses.
Not if the nearest available appropriate resource is genuinely being applied in
response plans.

Where it's a killer is in administrative work-load for Groupies. While some can
probably be devolved to DGO's, there will be a bucket-load of extra travel time
for good GO's who keep up with all their Brigades. Any savings in Group
vehicles is a complete crock of bovine manure - it will be even more essential
that all DGO's, and probably some other group admin positions will need regular
and extensive access to a vehicle. That is unless the savings are to be
achieved by transferring postage & delivery costs from Region budget into Group
budgets and volunteers' personal costs.

IF groupies were full-time paid employees of the service, there would be some
savings here in labour costs. But as Groupies are vollies, my take is that savings
are an illusion, or at worst, a cynical push of costs out of the regional admin
balance sheet & into the the (reduced) Group budgets & personal pockets.

Q. isn't March 2010 a state election ?

cheers

Author Topic: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal (Read 23391 times)

Darren

Darren

Desert Dweller