I agree with philip on this one, you need to use NIMS and wait for your head to stop hurting :-) - really, the concepts and terminology aren't too daunting after you've run a few exercises and gotten used to it. I agree with one bit of MDinana's post, there is an irritating tendency for someone somewhere to focus on issues of proper terminology and 'doing things by the book' that tends to grate on me, personally. Still, when faced with 'doing things by the book' (in Red Cross speak that usually means paperwork involved) or not doing things by the book, I will bow to the bookish approach - if my preferred way were better, they would re-write the book, and maybe someday in the future they will, meantime people who know the book should enforce it. I think consistent clear communication is critical in any response, if that isn't jeopardized by a responders choice of terminology I'm fine with it - imho some folks can become fairly anal about using only specific commands etc. I guess that's human nature, or maybe they've just been trained (or experienced) to a higher level than me.

Besides, it may seem counter-intuitive, but for nearly any response I've participated in, it is improved if the responders *do* take time to 'have a meeting' and plan the response a bit ahead of starting the actual response. That doesn't mean you don't put firefighters on an immediate and obvious fire (e.g. burning structure), but if you are fighting a wild land fire, you need to stop, take a deep breath, and assess the larger situation first.