"CRM Millennium Manifesto" - wow!
This discussion could be very fruitful in giving answers to what I see
as a critically important question: On which theory or theories do we
base CRM? I sometimes feel that we have lost sight of any theoretical
foundation. Take for instance the evolution of CRM through different
generations. Why did CRM evolve? Was this evolution theory driven, based
on new scientific knowledge? Was it perhaps based on a new look on
knowledge already available? Or was it based, as Keith wrote in his
recent mail, on" the perception that not all things were right in the
state of Denmark." ("Something rotten in the state of Denmark", wasn't
it?)
Tony touches upon the same theme in his recent mail: "Supposedly, we are
>now >in the midst of "fifth-generation CRM." This somehow connotes
that all that >has come before has been overcome by a newer and "better
way." I disagree. >New does not automatically mean "better." The
fundamentals of hazardous >attitudes and subtle incapacitation that I
saw in my very first exposure to >CRM in the early 1980s are still among
the most valuable tools in my human >factors kit bag today."
I agree with Tony, a lot of the themes and topics from early generation
CRM are still valuable today. But why? Are they valuable just because we
like them, or are they valuable because they tell us and the pilot
population something valid and important about human performance and
limitations? And if the fifth-generation CRM is better than previous
generations - why is it so, and how do we know?
So - on which theory or theories do we base CRM?
Being a psychologist, I'm of course completely unable to give easy
answers to anything, and this is no exception! But seriously, I think
CRM should be a product of several lines of theory, each relevant to
certain aspects of human performance. I feel we have a tendency to knock
each other down with different theories, not realizing that they in fact
are equally important and should exist side by side.
An example - Keith has made the point that it is difficult to justify
the synergy position. But - does this mean that we should abandon the
group as a concept in CRM? The group-individual relationship is by some
called "the master problem" of social psychology - is there more to
groups than the sum of the individuals that compromise them? If we feel
that the answer is no, then we should stop talking about the crew as a
group and treat them as individuals. I think this would be a serious
error, and feel that the concept of "the group" is central in relation
to CRM. But - we still need good, solid knowledge about the individual.
Solomon Asch, one of the pioneers of social psychology, put it this way:
"We need a way of understanding group process that retains the prime
reality of individual and group, the two permanent poles of all social
processes. We need to see group forces arising out of the actions of
individuals and individuals whose actions are a function of the group
forces that they themselves (or others) have brought into existence. We
must see group phenomena as both the product and condition of actions of
individuals". This was written 47 years ago, but I see it as valid even
today.
So - on which theory or theories should we base CRM in the next
millennium?
Best regards,
Jens R.
Jens Rolfsen
Human Factors Advisor / Psychologist
Braathens
Training Department
PO BOX 55
1330 FORNEBU
NORWAY
Jens.rolfsen_at_Braathens.no