Re: If we can't define it, how can the crews?

pjwolfe_at_ix.netcom.com
Sun, 01 Jun 1997 11:03:05 -0700

V. Mancuso wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> If the CRM developers can't come to an agreement on the scope and focus of
> CRM, we can hardly expect the thousands of crew members who receive CRM
> training to define it. According to the results of a 1997 study, the crews
> apparently haven't.
>
> The January 1997 survey I conducted in collaboration with Navy researchers
> indicates that line pilots believe CRM and Human factors to both be
> "training to get along better". Sadly, many of the folks who hold the
> purse strings to these programs share these misguided beliefs about CRM.
> We have only ourselves to blame. The recent discussions on this listserver
> about the definition of CRM are a reflection of how the misunderstandings
> and misinterpretations developed with line pilots and managers. If a
> manager asks a hundred experts and gets a hundred different definitions, it
> only takes a little while before the managers quit listening to the
> experts. The prevailing perception with line pilots and managers that CRM
> is small group dynamics training is, unfortunately, the legacy of the first
> generation CRM programs.
>
> When a CRM program seeks to "do it all", it ends up doing nothing. If a
> program has fuzzy boundaries that no one can understand and altruistic
> goals that can't be measured, it starts to sound more like a religion that
> requires a leap of faith instead of an organizational program that can be
> managed. Corporate programs based on a leap of faith and altruisms will
> eventually die. It's happening with CRM right now. Saavy managers
> generally do not base their decisions on a leap of faith. They usually do
> not support what they cannot clearly define and measure. Managers will
> also not support something that has no boundaries. We would all be doing
> ourselves a favor by clearly defining the terms and the scope of these
> programs.
>
> I challenge the group to come up with one declarative sentence in crew
> language for each of the following:
>
> The definition of CRM.
> The scope of a CRM program.
> The definition of human factors
> The scope of a human factors program
>
> If this group cannot do it, I do not think it can be done....
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Vince Mancuso

Vince,

You present a wonderful challenge for our group to address. I beleive
that the exercise will be extremely beneficial and certainly well worth
undertaking. But ...

I differ with you on two points: (1) that if we can't do it, it can't be
done -- assumes that all the most enlightened and articulate folks (on
this subject) are tuned in to this discussion and are willing to take the
time to participate. And (2) that if we develop "answers" to these four
questions that it will lead to the adoption of a more sharply focused
approach to program design/development -- i.e., less fuzzy around the
edges.

Regarding 1: Having seen the list of participants in this forum, there is
no doubt that we enjoy the benefit of a LOT of talented minds and varied
experience on this project. But I wouldn't go so far as to predict that
"it can't be done" if we're not able to provide a succinct reply.

Regarding 2: I agree that most managers want their operational and
investment decisions to be justified by clear and measurable objectives
-- the cost-benefit approach. Programs that are based on "feel good" and
"doing the right thing", without a well defined return on investment, may
be undertaken for short periods but usually "fade out" after a brief
time in the spotlight.

Clearly, the long-term acceptance and funding of a CRM program in most
organizations must be substantiated by a sound cost justification model.
Thus, the effort proposed here is WELL worthwhile. But,

Not all of the benefits of programs like CRM are easily tracked. We can
see an accident or incident rate change -- wouldn't that be great! But we
will have a tough time designing a metric to show the effect of lower
order skills training. One, for example, that will give us accurate stats
on the number of times when the training we gave on teamwork, problem
solving, risk management, etc. made a positive difference in the outcome
in some aspect of line ops -- flying, ground ops, maintenance, dispatch,
ATC, etc.

This is not to say that we CAN'T or SHOULDN'T try, but rather to
recognize the magnitude of the problem -- it's huge!

A second point on #2: Corporate buy-in FROM THE TOP is absolutely
essential to the success of any program if it hopes to survive for the
long term. Part 1 of the pitch needs to be the cost-benefit package. Part
2 needs to the "the right thing to do" -- to cover those elements that
can not be readily tracked.

So, I'd propose a second stage to the challenge that Vince has laid out:
* To identify the (general) cost-benefit aspects of a CRM/HF program
* To list justifications for the "right thing" aspects of a program

Till next time, cheers Pete Wolfe