Bravo!
You could not have hit the point more perfectly: " Over the past year we
have hit some hot button topics that indicate we may have forgotten the
operator along the way. "
It seems the programs under development and review may have done just
that. The focus of all this is, and always has been APPLICATION. Let's
re-focus and get back to real CRM.
D. Patterson
Lt Col Tony T. Kern, X-3230 wrote:
>
> Hello group
>
> I was waiting for this to finally occur. I've expected it for some time.
> Mike recently wrote
>
> "We are abandoning the acronym "CRM" entirely. The program will be
> called the "###### Flight Department Safety Program" or "Flight
> Standards Program" or something similar. We are also going to ask
> them
> to name the program."
>
> It appears that we may have come full circle from "CRM is the savior"
> to "CRM has gotten such a bad reputation that is has become the symbol
> of everything wrong in our human factors training programs -- the
> enemy." The godfathers and godmothers of CRM are moving out of flight
> operations at an alarming rate, to bring the gospel of teamwork,
> communication, and conflict resoIution to the medical, space, and other
> fields. I recently reviewed a journal article for a major publication that
> challenges the validity of the entire CRM approach.
> Is this the first distant echo of the death knell of CRM as we know it? If
> so, where did we go wrong along the way. Over the past year we have
> hit some hot button topics that indicate we may have forgotten the
> operator along the way. Focusing on "what we teach" and "how we
> teach" we may have lost track of "who we teach." The discussion on
> "what is professionalism" was trivalized into statements such as
> "professionalism to me is the smile of a satisfied customer." If that is
> the best we are capable of, no wonder we have lost our way. What about
> OUR CUSTOMER, the flight personnel and maintainers we train? How
> many smiles do we see on their faces?
> I began a project about this time last year to define the "next
> generation" of CRM. I got sidetracked into the literature and haven't
> moved out as smartly as I should have here, and I apologize to those of
> you who signed on for the tiget team for a lack of follow-up. I am more
> and more convinced that I posed the wrong question then. Instead of
> how will CRM be taught in the future, perhaps the better question is "In
> the next ten years, what will be the most effective way to accomplish the
> objectives that are currently met by CRM?" Which begs another, more
> fundamental question -- what ARE the the objectives of CRM? Safety
> certainly, but what about effectiveness, efficiency, job satisfaction,
> retention, recruitment? Are these not legitimate human factors
> concerns? Is fifth generation CRM the MOST effective method for
> accomplishing these goals? Where is the RECENT research on CRM
> effectiveness? Not in terms of student satisfaction -- but rather of
> performance. Dr Nullmeyer and a few others are pushing this side of the
> equation, but more serious performance based criteria and inquiry needs
> to be done if CRM is not to crumble faster than the Berlin Wall.
> All of these questions need to be answered -- and soon -- if we hope to
> reinvigorate CRM into its full potential before more jump ship and move
> to "something else" -- whatever that may be. One of the greatest
> philoshophers of our age -- the great Mel Brooks -- stated (in History of
> the World Part 2) "Gentlemen, we must protect our phoney-baloney
> jobs." Let's not have it come down to that.
>
> Tony Kern