Here at NAV CANADA, Western Region, Edmonton, we are about to take our
Air Traffic Services Team Resource Management Course to the classroom
for 8 courses beginning October 06. This is a brand new program, and we
are very excited about its potential.
One of our course modules, Day 1, after HF, is Team Building. We are
using a 3.5 hour teambuilding exercise that clearly points out the
"Synergy" of teambuilding, vs the solo approach to problem solving. We
are using resources from "Human Synergistics Canada" of Ingersoll
Ontario - near Toronto- I'll call them "HS".
Our two TRM facilitators recently attended a leaders' workshop in
Toronto to get checked out on the HS teambuilding exercises. As part of
the exercise we are also using a module that allows teammembers to
assess and present to the plenary the quality of the work of the group
in their problemsolving. HS calls this a "Group Styles Inventory".
Having participated in a few industry CRM programs, where a team member
leaves his group to observe (and eventually report to the plenary) on
the interaction and communication styles of another team, I found the
GSI to be less intimidating.
Our team on the HS exercise was evaluated by one of our team members.
Other team members did not notice this - we thought he was just being
quiet, and so we attempted to bring him into the group discussions.
Anyway !! The team, upon looking at its Group Styles Inventory, began
to analyse the results voluntarily - it wasn't part of the process, but
for me as a TRM facilitator it was a golden moment. I sure hope it
works on our TRM course.
In addition to team building, we are also doing a 6.5 hour day on
Interpersonal Communications in the Operational Environment. We
workshop communications problems:barriers to communications, how to
overcome barriers, examine a few occurrences from a HF/Communications
point of view. We look at Inquiry, Advocacy, Conflict Resolution, and
workshop scenarios. We hope that we have a good, useable and salable
product for our controllers and flight service specialists.
I don't want to take up too much space on this great site, so if you
would like to hear more please call me at 403-413-5331 in Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada, or contact me discretely on the net:
breenjo_at_navcanada.ca
PS Thoroughly enjoyed the discussion on "Roguism" - It is certainly not
confined to the cockpit, as my colleague at NY TRACON Brian Fallon
suggests. We hope that some of the roguism in our corner of the system
will be diluted thru' the TRM program.
Cheers
John Breen
NAV CANADA
Team Resource Management Project
Edmonton, AB, Canada
>----------
>From: Jens Rolfsen[SMTP:Jens.rolfsen_at_Braathens.no]
>Sent: September 11, 1997 3:45 AM
>To: 'crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu'
>Subject: RE: CRM Exercises
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>Jens Rolfsen
>Psychologist
>Braathens SAFE
>Training Department
>Postboks 55
>1330 Oslo Lufthavn
>Norway
>Tlf.(47) 67 59 70 00
>
>> ----------
>> From: Mark Pitt[SMTP:M.Pitt_at_xtra.co.nz]
>> Sent: 10. September 1997 14:02
>> To: crm-developers
>> Subject: CRM Exercises
>>
>>
>> I am assisting in the development of a CRM indoctrination course and
>> annual refreshers within an airline. Sourcing good practical
>> exercises
>> for the classroom is proving difficult.
>>
>> Specifically, I am looking for some good exercises to reinforce
>> concepts
>> associated with communication, conflict resolution, distraction and
>> workload, situational awareness, decision making and problem solving,
>> and team building.
>>
>> Can anyone assist?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mark Pitt
>>
>Mark, in April this year I had a similar question, and got some very
>useful replies. I take this opportunity to put them all together and
>share them with the group. Thanks to Dave Wilson, HTI, Harry Holding,
>Ansett Australia, David L. Bair, Frontier Airlines and Greg Deen, HTI -
>I hope you forgive me for sharing "your" exercises with everyone!
>
>The first exercise is from Dawe Wilson, HTI:
>
>Here is a role playing exercise we have used with some success.
>Our basic crew has five people. We set five chairs in front of the group
>arranged like the crew sits in the aircraft. The cabin crewmember's
>(loadmaster)chair is faced in the opposite direction of the other
>chairs. A
>vounteer crew from the audience, one person from each crew discipline,
>chooses a chair. They may not choose the seat they normally occupy. That
>is,
>the pilot's are not allowed to choose either pilot's seat, etc.
> The crewmember who sits in the left pilot's seat is designated as
>the
>aircraft commander. He is given a box, about the size of a shoe or shirt
>box.
>There is a large "X" drawn in the center of the box. A marble is placed
>in
>the box and the "pilot's" job is to keep the marble in the center of the
>box.
>Any time the marble hits the side of the box, the noise will attract the
>attention of the group to "aircraft control". The facilitator should
>position
>himself so that he can, unobtrusively, watch the pilot's contol. As the
>problem solution heats up, the pilot may or may not hand-off control to
>the
>co-pilot, but should not be encouraged to do so, either in the setup or
>cnduct of the exercise.
> Each crew member is given a card describing a dilemma. One
>paragraph
>describes the general situation, then specific circumstances are
>described on
>the card for each crew member. The cards are constructed so that each
>crew
>member knows the general situation, but only he sees his own specific
>instructions. Those instructions might be that he has a sick child at
>home
>and badly wants to get back to home station. Another is that the crew
>member
>has an old flame in a likely stopover base and wants to stop there.
>There are
>others. Each is designed to raise conflict between and among the crew
>members
>as they try to resolve the general dilemma. It may be something like an
>engine shut down, deteriorating weather, and a choice to continue to
>home
>station or land at an intermediate base. The problem can be simple or
>complicated requiring use of the flight manual (to compute performance
>data),
>etc.
> Like any role playing exercise, the success is in the
>believability,
>reality and construction of the exercise. The facilitator's setup is
>also
>important. After the exercise is complete (they reach a decision). The
>crew
>and the audience discuss what they saw. The facilitator leads the group
>through the presence or absence of the CRM behaviors.
>
>
>The next exercise is from Captain Harry Holding, group leader, CRM
>development, Ansett Australia:
>
>The Blocks Exercise
>
>Time: 30 minutes
>
>Media: Slide and blocks
>
>Relationship to Other Areas:
>
>This exercise builds on the communication theory discussed in the
>previous
>module and highlights the importance of feedback. This can also be
>linked
>with the Support Process and crew situation awareness.
>
>Overview:
>
>The block exercise has been designed to demonstrate how a task involving
>more than one person can be much better performed if there is good two
>way
>communication and feed back between the participants. Hearing is a
>passive
>process and occurs even when we are asleep. Listening, on the other
>hand,
>is not. It means not only hearing but paying attention, understanding
>and
>remembering.
>
>Sequence:
>
>The exercise is conducted in two parts:
>Part A.
>The instructor seats both participants at a table, separated by a
>partition, and arranges the blocks in a haphazard sequence.
>Person one should attempt to instruct person two how to arrange the
>blocks,
>so that the two sets look the same. Person two can not reply to person
>one's instructions in any way or view the original set up of person
>one's
>blocks. Neither player can view the other's blocks during the game.
>This
>demonstrates the limitations of one way communication.
>Allow a time limit of 5 minutes.
>
>Part B.
>With the same two participants, the instructor arranges the blocks again
>in
>a different way.
>Person 1 now instructs person 2 how to arrange the blocks. Person 2 can
>now ask questions and seek clarification which person 1 can answer.
>this
>demonstrates a two way communication process.
>Allow a time limit of five minutes again.
>
>The results should be better in part b, which should reinforce the value
>of
>feedback. If it hasn't use the exercise to analyse what went wrong in
>the
>communication process using the theory presented immediately before this
>exercise.
>
>The following communication skills are essential for this exercise to be
>a
>success:
>The ability of person one to give clear concise and unambiguous
>instructions.
>Good listening skills by both participants.
>When feedback is allowed person 2 must feel encouraged to ask and
>question
>- the link with the Skywest Support Process should the highlighted here.
>Language used must be understood by all involved.
>
>Keep it light hearted. this exercise is designed for people to enjoy.
>Conduct the exercise more than once if time permits using different
>participants. observe the process taking place and ask the class to
>comment and offer constructive criticism.
>
>Some of the class may question the validity of the exercise given the
>effect of practice on the two participants. This question should be
>countered by saying that given the broad range of skill participants
>should
>be kept the same for both parts of the exercise. Compliment them on
>that
>though and remark the practice and training are effects that will be
>discussed during the review of situation awareness.
>
>If time permits carry out the following exercise as a adjunct to the
>Blocks
>exercise.
>
>Next exercise - Captain David L. Bair, Frontier Airlines:
>One of the fun exercises I like to do during indoctrination comes from a
>childhood game called "Brain Teasers". It shows how easily we as humans
>make
>assumptions about what we perceive. It comes in the form of a riddle
>for them
>to ask questions about. I can only answer " yes , no, or irrelevant"
>to their
>questions. This involves "Inquiry" on their part and "Incomplete
>Communication"
>on my part from the beginning. So here it goes.
>
>"Tom and Mary" Tom is asleep on the couch and Mary is lying on the
>floor, dead.
>There is broken glass and water on the floor. What happened?
>
>As the group asks their questions the "Mental Model" slowly changes in
>everyone's mind from their original picture, as the process takes place.
>Each
>person has a unique view of the situation depending on my answer to each
>question from the group. Every question and answer adds a different
>"picture", (
>perception vs reality ). There are as many perceptions of the
>situation, as you
>have people in the class. Eventually the class through "Teamwork" and
>"Inquiry"
>solves the mystery of the "Reality of the Situation". Tom is a cat and
>Mary is
>a fish. Tom accidently knocked the fish bowl onto the floor on his way
>to his
>nap on the couch. (Someone usually asks why Tom didn't eat the fish).
>It is
>amazing to watch the process take place and then to see the "lightbulb"
>come on
>when they figure out the "Reality of the Situation".
>
>You have to tell them how naturally we assume certain things when the
>"communication" or message is incomplete from the beginning and how long
>it
>takes to resolve the "Ambiguity". ( Precious time in an aircraft on
>arrival ).
>If I told them,"Tom is a cat asleep on the couch and Mary is a dead fish
>on the
>floor. There is broken glass and water on the floor. What happened"?,
>they
>would not have any trouble at all. But I purposely left out some
>important
>details. They can see what happens when we accidently leave out
>important
>details when communicating. I tell them that I knew the situation all
>the time,
>why didn't they? Then I say how easily I can assume that they got the
>right
>message the first time.
>
>There are lots of "Brain Teasers" to choose from varying in difficulty
>and
>sometimes after class at the local watering hole is a better place, than
>to take
>up too much class time by doing more than one. It's also fun to have one
>of the
>students know the answer to the riddle and answer the questions form the
>class
>instead of me.
>
>And finally, an exercise from Greeg Deen, HTI:
>One of mine, which is used during my Facilitator Training course, is
>what
>seems to be a "trivia" test, on the CRM courseware. This comes on day
>four
>(of 5), when the students have been repeatedly exposed to the technical
>aspects and vocabulary of our course. In one partiular session, a
>certain
>student taught the others something very important.
> The exercise has two phases--an individual and a group. The
>individuals take a test about the course. There are 15 questions that
>ask for
>terminology and numbers that have been discussed in class and are in the
>book
>(which they study at night of course). This is a closed-book test. The
>individuals are given 5 minutes to complete the test, and the tests are
>then
>taken from them. They are then formed into small groups, 3-5 each
>depending
>on the size of the overall class, and asked to take the test again, as a
>group.
> During the group test, the facilitator scores the test and posts the
>individual scores on the board. Only the test score is posted, not
>"which"
>ones were correct. After 15 minutes, the "group" answer sheet is
>collected,
>and scored. If the group is better than the strongest individual, we
>call
>that "synergy", and the team learns that they did better as a group.
> On the session I mentioned before, one particular student, during the
>"individual" part, scored higher than anyone else. In fact over the
>next two
>years, no one has scored as well as he. He answered 14 of 15 questions
>correctly, when the average score is about 8. What was interesting in
>the
>"group" session, is that the group's score was lower than his; they did
>NOT
>achieve synergy.
> Now you may be wondering what's so special about this? This
>individual's aircraft job is a radio operator in the back of the
>airplane--he
>does NOT have "aviator" wings on his chest, and he was not of an officer
>rank.
> Think about that!
>
>I hope these exercises are useful for you, Mark, and others
>
>Best regards
>
>Jens Rolfsen
>