![Questions, comments, more info...... Peter Di Turi Seattle Fire Department City of Seattle 301 2nd Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104-5031 phone: 206.386.1542 e-mail: [email_address]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/resolvingvisicadquestionswithgis-13207264233869-phpapp02-111107224019-phpapp02/85/Resolving-VisiCad-Questions-With-GIS-66-320.jpg)
Resolving VisiCad Questions With GIS
- 1. Resolve Two of the Biggest VisiCAD Questions with GIS Peter Di Turi GIS Analyst Seattle Fire Department
- 2. Discussion Points Tools to answer the questions Information on WHERE, who, what, when – to figure out HOW and WHY GIS and non-GIS analysis tools VisiCAD tools What are the 2 questions? Methodologies to address/answer them Examples Other resources
- 3. Tools to Collect Information How are you collecting your info? When discovering a problem? Chat in the hall? Phone call? Pager or cell phone? E-mail? Group meeting? Work Request database?
- 4. Seattle Fire has a database to collect MIS Work Requests.
- 5. There are query options by status, assigner, date range, work type, priority. Also tracked are events/notes related to each request.
- 6. Details of each request are kept, such as contact information. Assignments can be delegated for each task and time tracked.
- 7. Web page front-end is used to collect requests from SFD staff.
- 8. GIS and Non-GIS Tools GIS Software ESRI, MapInfo, Intergraph, etc. Non-GIS software RDBMS (SQL Server, Oracle, Sybase, Informix, Ingres, MySQL, etc.) Office tools (MS Office, WordPerfect Office) App dev software (.NET, Java, Delphi, etc.) Data (compiled, purchased, exported)
- 9. ArcView project having Seattle Fire network data
- 10. SQL Server query of sfdmain_system database
- 11. VisiCAD Tools Initial Assign screen (test environment) Incident Editor Unit Activity Log (Show AVL Data) GIS Playback GeoLocator (Show Directions) VisiNET Browser Dispatch Rules Setup Utility Road Network Management Utility (v4.1) User-Derivative Tools (Seattle Fire’s CADview)
- 12. Initial assign on a test system can simulate send response and additional recommendations
- 13. Use Incident Editor to research and query incidents effectively.
- 14. Three great sources of information in the Incident Editor: a) The Incident Times tab…
- 15. … b) the Edit Log tab, and…
- 16. … c) the Call Activities tab.
- 17. The Unit Activity log can be queried by unit for a given day. The “Show AVL Data” box should ALWAYS be checked for analyses.
- 18. Use VisiCAD Explorer’s Tools/Show Directions functionality to determine Shortest Path unweighted times and distances
- 19. VisiNET Browser can be used to acquire analysis data if you don’t have direct access to CAD dispatch stations.
- 20. With knowledge, a user application could be developed to query data from CAD’s database system more tailored to the organization, such as Seattle’s CADview system.
- 21. Discussion Points Tools to answer the questions What are the 2 big questions? Methodologies to address/answer them Examples Other resources
- 22. The 2 nd Biggest Question…
- 23. The 2 nd Biggest Question… “ Why is the address wrong?”
- 24. The 2 nd Biggest Question… “ Why is the address wrong?” ALI/ANI incorrect Caller information Call entry No geovalidation possible Mislinking of CAD aliases Bad CAD premise location entry OR… Premise interface problems
- 25. ALI/ANI has trouble with some wireless calls, sometimes providing a cell tower address as incident location
- 26. Alarm Company notified dispatch – provided address that’s not a street, but needs to be in CAD.
- 27. Ungeoverified address shows with missed bulls-eye =AND with Edit Log NOT FOUND entry
- 28. Address geovalidates OK today as shown, but once geovalidated in CAD as 2401 4th Av (no suffix). The difference between the two is 48 blocks .
- 29. Premise Interface To CAD Goal: improved business efficiency Source for VisiCAD is an RMS Authoritative source may be RMS or another database (e.g., inspection, prefire, confidence testing, permits, licensing, construction, etc.) Business process with mandatory QC Geovalidation must be automatic and consistent between GIS and VisiCAD
- 30. Premise Interface To CAD Automatic Geovalidation: Address evaluated as-is - NO interactive choices Note: Regeovalidation Utility provides interactive choices for ungeovalidated premises Consistent Geovalidation: Geovalidation works the same way in VisiCAD as it does in your favorite GIS software Street names and types need to be consistent for automated geovalidation
- 31. Premise Interface To CAD – From Authoritative Source… Authoritative source from Ops: Seattle’s Inspection Database…
- 32. …to QA Processing in RMS… … passing through a QA process handled by MIS within the scope of RMS…
- 33. …to its final destination in CAD … approved records in QA get updated through interface to CAD, to be available to dispatchers and Ops.
- 34. Resolving “Bad Address” Question Resolve ALI/ANI issues where possible (dispatch, phone company, customer) Ensure validation in call-taking process Keep GIS street data up-to-date Keep premise info up-to-date QA ALL premises and aliases entered or downloaded to CAD
- 35. And now, the top question…
- 36. And now, the top question… “ Why weren’t WE chosen for the run???”
- 37. “Why weren’t we chosen?” Dispatcher override Operations: Not going back in service quickly enough Question CAD recommendations System: AVL system fails to track units TriTech ServiceWise issues
- 38. “ Why weren’t we chosen?” – Example 1 “They’re not where you think they are” On 8/10/05 Engine 28 was at MLK & Lucile when a full response was sent to 1903 12th Av S (#76178). Engine 5 was included in this response with an ETA of 8:53. Engine 28 easily could have beaten E5 to this response location.
- 39. a) Check the unit that got dispatched – the response isn’t from the fire station – note the dispatch time
- 40. b) Check the unit that thought it should have been dispatched – note its location at the last timestamp before the dispatch 08/10/05 11:08:46 AVL S LUCILE ST\M L KING JR WAY S 08/10/05 11:16:51 AVL S BRANDON ST\35TH AV S 08/10/05 11:17:17 AVL RENTON AV S\S BRANDON ST 08/10/05 11:17:49 AVL S LUCILE ST\39TH AV S
- 41. c) Determine E5 non-weighted time from Stewart/Minor to incident location and multiply by unit weights
- 42. d) d) Determine E28 non-weighted time from MLK S/S Lucile to incident location and multiply by unit weights
- 43. “ Why weren’t we chosen?” – Example 1 “ They’re not where you think they are” Analysis: E28 was indeed located at MLK Jr Way S and S Lucile St, and its ETA to the incident at 1903 12th Av S was calculated at 12 minutes, 58 seconds over a distance of 3.6 miles. E5 was not located AIQ at this dispatch, but far away from home - at Stewart St and Minor Av, and thus had a straighter run to the incident. E5's ETA was 8:53 over a 2.43 mile distance, and thus was recommended over E28 for this response.
- 44. “ Why weren’t we chosen?” – Example 2 “ Further but faster” On 8/16/05 Inc. #78222 a FIB was dispatched to 28 S Brandon St. Engine 5 was sent with an ETA of 10:38 (Actual response time of 12 minutes). Engine 28 was in quarters and easily could have beaten E5 to this location.
- 45. a) Check the unit that got dispatched – the response is from the fire station – note the dispatch time
- 46. b) Check the unit that thought it should have been dispatched – it was AIQ at the last timestamp before the dispatch
- 47. c) Determine E5 non-weighted time from Station 5 to incident location and multiply by unit weights
- 48. d) Determine E5 shortest distance from Station 5 to incident location
- 49. e) Determine E28 non-weighted time from Station 28 to incident location and multiply by unit weights
- 50. f) Determine E28 shortest distance from Station 28 to incident location
- 51. g) Verify that higher road speeds are significant to the response from Station 5 40
- 52. h) Verify that lower road speeds are significant to the response from Station 28
- 53. Why weren’t we chosen?” – Example 2 Analysis: E28 and E5 were AIQ. The ETA computed for E28 to the incident at 28 S Brandon St was 12:08 covering 3.4 miles. The E5 ETA to the incident was computed at 10:38 for a slightly longer 3.49 mile distance. E5's ETA route took it onto the viaduct using the higher speed limits available by SB SR99, compared to local road travel by E28.
- 54. Why weren’t we chosen?” – Example 3 “AVL wasn’t working” E36 was picked for a run on 09/10 @ 6324 17 th Av SW when E11 normally responds to this run. This has been happening on occasion for some two months now.
- 55. a) Check the unit that got dispatched – the response is from the fire station – note the dispatch time
- 56. b) No AVL statuses are recorded from E11. Thus, going AOR doesn’t change the location from the previous on-scene location. The AIQ is too late for the run.
- 57. c) Review dispatched engine (E36) response and note its non-weighted time
- 58. d) Review expected engine (E11) response - assuming it was AIQ - and note its non-weighted time
- 59. e) Review estimated engine (E11) response from its last known location - and note its non-weighted time
- 60. “ Why weren’t we chosen” - Example 3 “ AVL wasn’t working” Analysis: If both units were AIQ, then E11 would have been at that location in 5 minutes, 24 seconds and should have been recommended for the run. E36 would have taken 9 minutes 4 seconds. E11 was not AIQ at the time of the call, it was AOR. E11 didn't press its button AIQ until after the dispatch of the incident (16:45:14). Normally, the need to push AIQ shouldn't make a difference, because if the AVL was working, than E11 would likely be located at an intersection close to the station and an assignment would be used on that basis. Unfortunately, AVL was not working for E11. Thus, CAD had to use the last known location of E11, which was at 9000 Olson Pl SW, the on-scene location of their previous response (#87129). You can already see the problem. E11, now erroneously located further south than where it really was, was estimated to take a lot longer - 12 minutes, 47 seconds - to get to the incident. That's why E36 was chosen for this case.
- 61. “ Why weren’t we chosen?” – Final Example “ Maybe it’s really a VisiCAD problem” All units AIQ, Aid Cars unweighted. An aid incident at SB SR99 TO WB WSEA FRWY is processed for Initial Assign; the recommendation shows Engine 5 at 5:57 and Engine 10 at 6:19, but no mention of Aid 5, which is right next to Engine 10. Aid 5, with no travel weights, should have been dispatched for the run. Additional Recommendation for Aid Car capability, Aid 2 (much further north from Aid 5) came in at 7:34, then Aid 14 (to travel very far north to get south on the freeway) at 8:43, and then - finally –Aid 5 at 9:12. Go one segment closer to Aid 5 and Engine 10 access (SB SR99 AT HOLGATE) and you now will get Aid 5 first and Engine 5 second response (closer freeway on-ramp access correctly puts Engine 5 over Engine 10 here).
- 62. “ Why weren’t we chosen?” – Final Example “ Maybe it’s really a VisiCAD problem” Seattle verified that the problem could be created again and again Seattle verified no anomalies with GIS network data (directionality) Seattle wrote up ServiceWise request to TriTech Seattle provided screen shots of Initial Assign and GeoLocator screens illustrating the right and wrong recommendations TriTech generated ticket TS-29503 and assigned an analyst for it Seattle assisted TriTech with VPN access TriTech diagnosed the problem in Seattle’s production system Seattle sent copy of streets DB to TriTech for isolated testing TriTech in-house troubleshooting found the problem TriTech developed fix and tested it in Seattle test system TriTech implemented fix as part of Command 4.0 SP10 patch 10
- 63. Discussion Points Tools to answer the questions What are the 2 big questions? Other resources
- 64. Other Resources Support.tritech.com and 1-800-VISICAD TriTech Users Group and Yahoo!™ Newsgroup including the GREAT GIS Committee!!!! VisiCON (TriTech staff and clients) GIS and other software vendors Dispatchers Operations staff
- 65. So, when resolving problems… Know what software tools and resources are available to you Use your resources effectively Collect, retain and evaluate your input Develop common methods to solve these issues Document your solutions and refine them
- 66. Questions, comments, more info...... Peter Di Turi Seattle Fire Department City of Seattle 301 2nd Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104-5031 phone: 206.386.1542 e-mail: [email_address]