I usually agree totally with Greg's comments, but I think his quote below
is exactly one of the problems Tony addresses so well in his piece. "An
audience other than crewmembers" are NOT clients of the CRM
program--beneficiaries maybe-- but definitely not clients. The biggest
problem with the CRM Program, as I see it, is we have forgotten that our
clients are, in fact, the aircrews. It all started when we changed
"Cockpit" Resource Management to "Crew" Resource Management. I believe this
change was a major reason leading to the corruption of disciples of the
program and the subsequent looking around at the emergency medical, and
public safety areas as potential beneficiaries of CRM. This is not to say
that the principles don't apply in these areas, but why not let the ORMers,
or some such other ABC program work these "clients". Our problem is that
folks "in the cockpit" still make deadly mistakes and errors, and these are
the folks who should be receiving dedicated CRM Training so the
"beneficiaries" in the back can ride in peace. When was the last time a
flight attendant crashed a jet? Sure, there may be that odd spilled cup of
McDonalds hot coffee in the aircrews lap, but that's like saying we
shouldn't wear seatbelts because one jammed while stalled on the railroad
tracks. It's the folks up front, folks, who gave rise to CRM, and all the
reasons for focusing on the aircrew are just as valid today as they were
when the program was birthed. It would be very interesting to have a study
done of all the programs that started out for very valid reasons, made vast
strides very quickly, and were then totally obliterated by some folks who
just had to expand the concept and create new names/acronyms, until the
original concept just disappeared. Where's MBO, TQM etc. etc. etc. now? I
sure hope the "Real" CRMers in this group don't allow the program to "Grow"
any further. Let's leave that for other Gurus to handle. We need to keep
the focus on CRM as in "Cockpit Resource Management". What makes up the
Cockpit can be defined in, but if we don't focus on the folks who have the
"Stick" we'll lose them--literally and figuratively. The "Crew" as always
will go along for the ride. CRM works!
Gordie Breault
Greg writes:
"And as for the true "clients" of the CRM program? It is not the
aviators, themselves. They CHOOSE to take the risk of flying. I teach CRM
for
an audience other than the crewmembers, who don't have the choice.
Consider
those who are the true beneficiaries of our programs, or the victims of not
having a quality program.
Raise your sights, folks. Someone else needs this training to be better
than it is."
Tony writes:
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 resolution 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 trivialized 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 tiger 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 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
philosophers of our age -- the great Mel Brooks -- stated (in History of
the World Part 2) "Gentlemen, we must protect our phony-baloney
jobs." Let's not have it come down to that.
Tony Kern