Maj.Jim Gosnell, NYANG
At 11:25 AM 5/14/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Just a comment on Greg's quote below, and Tony's following that.
>
>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
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
*******
James L. Gosnell R.N. Research Coordinator
Work Phone: (617) 732-5196 or 8222 Anesthesia Department
Fax Number: (617) 277-2192 Brigham And Women's
Hospital
Pager: (617) 732- 6987 Number: 11217 75 Francis St. Boston,
MA 02115
****************************************************************************
*******