Definición de los objetivos de las iteraciones (Sprint Backlog)

CRM training in other domains is delivered to employees in an organisational context. Although some drivers are employees whose main occupation is driving, individuals undertake most of their driving for private purposes. Even professional drivers also drive as private individuals. The different context of driving has implications for how CRM training might be adapted to this domain. The main differences between driving and the aviation domain are summarised below and the implications for driver CRM training are articulated:

1. Drivers have not all received the same training. In other domains professional groups have usually progressed through a standardised training syllabus and so share a common understanding of procedures. This was not the case in the early development of CRM training when there were many pilots who had flown for their whole careers without receiving CRM training. It was often difficult for younger pilots to act according to their training when others did not have the same understanding of the reasons for those actions. Having drivers who have not had a similar level of training is similar. Until there is a significant proportion of the

TEAM TRAINING FOR SAFER YOUNG DRIVERS AND PASSENGERS IN THE ACT 38 population who have received this training, it will be difficult for drivers and passengers to

have a common understanding and acceptance of the behaviours which CRM promotes. 2. Pilots have a common culture, especially in relation to safety and this is reinforced by the

organisational culture. The expectation from the organisation is that passenger comfort and safety will be the paramount concerns for pilots. Pilots therefore expect their peers to have the same orientation to their work as they themselves do.

3. Pilots have been selected to fulfill certain criteria and are therefore likely to be more similar to each other physically and psychologically than are drivers. People with poor attitudes to safety are therefore screened out and pilots have an expectation that their peers will share the same values and have the same level of skill as they do. In driving, this is not the case. Drivers will differ in their skill level and desire to take risks and goals for driving, all of which create a wide range of attitudes to safety. This implies that CRM training for driving needs to emphasise differences between drivers and therefore the need for passengers to monitor and potentially react to very idiosyncratic aspects in their driver’s performance.

4. Unlike the aviation domain, within the driving domain there is no explicit requirement for team coordination. A pilot’s job is structured around the need for teamwork and people’s roles are defined by their position in the team. Sanctions can also be applied when performance is poor. Although a pilot can be more or less skilled in coordinating with team members, the expectation that teamwork is required is acknowledged. In driving, no formal recognition of the team concept and team roles currently exists. This implies that CRM training for drivers must incorporate a component that explains the need for drivers and passengers to work as a team and shows how teamwork can improve safety.

5. In commercial aviation, teamwork is always required, but in driving not only do people often drive by themselves, there are many situations in which teamwork is not required because the conditions do not warrant it. However, in poor weather, at night, when workload is high or hazards are present teamwork could be helpful. Because of this characteristic of driving, a component of the training should be to recognise situations in which teamwork is relevant and helpful.

6. In driving the team is often characterised by social rather than professional relationships. There are therefore no formal lines of authority and safe performance standards need to be negotiated by drivers and passengers. This is likely to require a considerable amount of skill because of the subtle constraints imposed on communication between people by social mores. 7. In aviation, CRM is constantly reinforced through recurrent training programs. In driving

training is likely to occur once and therefore the benefits are likely to diminish over time. This is not a problem unique to CRM training. Others have noted this in relation to driver training in general (Senserrick & Morrison, 2003). However, it is worth reiterating that the benefits of innovative driver training programs will only be fully realised with recurrent training.

In summary, it is apparent that there are a number of distinct differences between the driving and aviation domains that will affect the content and delivery of a driver CRM training program. The differences between the two domains identified above have the following implications for driver CRM training:

• Driver CRM training should emphasise the potential differences between drivers (such as skill levels and risk taking behaviour).

TEAM TRAINING FOR SAFER YOUNG DRIVERS AND PASSENGERS IN THE ACT 39 • Driver CRM training should emphasise the safety benefits associated with passengers

monitoring driver performance.

• Driver CRM training should include a component that highlights the importance of teamwork within the driving domain, the benefits of drivers and passengers working as a team and the potential road safety improvements resulting from effective teamwork in driving.

• Driver CRM training should teach drivers and passengers to effectively recognize situations in which teamwork is required.

• Driver CRM training should develop skills for negotiating safe performance standards within driving teams.

• The benefits of driver CRM training will only be realised with recurrent training.

• The benefits of driver CRM training will only be fully realised if a significant proportion of the driving population receives the training.

5.2

Identification of the KSAs required to Perform