Referring again to the concept bubbles in Figure 21, the next of the interrelated themes to be examined in more detail relates to the role that training plays. The importance of training was evident both through the observations during the simulation exercises and from feedback; it was also a common thread within the SME observations. Training is critical as it enables a team to build on the existing specialised capabilities both of the team members and of the team leaders. So, while it is critical to select the right people
for the team, people with the correct capabilities, authority, respect and experience, it is even more crucial to implement a training program that contributes to the ongoing capability development, and at a frequency that ensures that those crisis teams that do not experience a live activation on a regular basis remain ‘battle ready’.
Training therefore is critical to ensuring the overall effectiveness of the crisis response. SME18 (2016, p. 3) in her observations said that if we want to enhance capabilities and response then “training is the key”, with some observers noting that it was second in importance only to ensuring that the correct people were placed onto the team with the training enhancing interoperability and connectivity (SME2, 2016; SME10, 2016). In fact, one of the reasons why the deviation occurs was linked by the SMEs to a lack of training due to the environment that crisis team members experience when they are thrust into the complexity of an unfamiliar situation. This can drive individuals to reverting to thinking that the issue is out of control. SME10 (2016, p. 5) argued that this was in his opinion one of the major contributors to process deviation for it is a business failure not to exercise and train teams with a high level of frequency. A lack of frequency means that the teams miss out on gaining vital pre-crisis experience in the use of the artefacts. These are skills and understanding that can be forgotten, unless tested in real life between the training sessions. While simulations may not fully test the team, they are central to developing a baseline understanding of the processes and routines together while enabling the team members to become comfortable with one another.
Where, though, should the focus of the training be positioned? One view, as presented by SME 10 (2016, p. 11), was that there should be an equal weighting placed towards both the crisis leader and the team. Here there is a fine balance to be attained and conversely it was argued that an emphasis should be placed on the coordinator. Here SME4 (2016, p. 8) noted “that an 80/20 approach in favour of coordinators” would provide the most value-add. This would require the training to provide a focus on leadership, decision making and the core element of process management. This was aligned with SME1 (2017, p. 11), who presented a position that the focus must be on the coordinator, particularly as they have the potential to maintain stability while other members of the team may come and go. SME21 (2016, p. 12) built on this by arguing that it is vital “to have a dedicated coordinator who acts as the nexus for coordination” and from there it
becomes that individual’s responsibility to train and educate the team members. However, the additional counter argument was presented by SME 23 (2016, p. 8) with support from SME14 (2016, p. 9), who argued that the priority should be “focused on how the team members act effectively as a strong team rather than as any one
individual.”
Ultimately, though, there was a solid argument for ensuring a focus on the crisis leader. The reality is that no matter how good the team is, it is the crisis leader who will be responsible for providing the fabric of the structure, for ensuring routines are followed and for keeping the team on track. This requires those responsible for the development of the training modules to create a stream that builds on the team approach yet enables specific time to be allocated for the crisis leader’s development. Here, the focus would be on the critical actions that need to be applied to minimise process deviation and the mechanisms that can be applied to control a team that attempts to take short cuts. This training then needs to be held at a frequency that enables it to become second nature and automatic for all participants. By becoming second nature, the training creates confidence in how the crisis team should perform in a real life situation (SME3, 2016; SME11, 2017; SME15, 2016).
Central to the training theme was the importance of the training being strongly aligned to real life experiences. This alignment is generated through effectively capturing the lessons learnt from active cases, dissecting them and creating the training scenarios from that data. This requires the creation of models that bring together organisational learning and involves structuring the approach to case reviews and their analysis, and to dissecting lessons learned. By ensuring a lesson learned and review program is
integrated into the ostensive routines an organisation is able to ensure that effective organisational learning is implemented. It is from this process that a business can identify best practices, particularly as they relate to process deviation minimisation. This knowledge is then shared and its integration into the training ensures that the team avoids similar situations occurring in the preventative stage, and, in the event that a situation eventuates, it ensures that the correct protocols are in place to respond to the crisis (SME2, 2016; SME17, 2016).
One of the challenges faced in gathering this important data is the attitude of the team and an inability of the individuals to see past their own real-life experiences and
recognise different types of crisis warning signals. A position where individuals are not willing to look more broadly and acknowledge that a change in direction may be
required can contribute to making the learning process in both the pre-crisis and post crisis stages of the crisis management cycle quite challenging (SME3, 2016). This is another dynamic for the crisis leader to consider. The pre-event planning and how a team can develop further from the learnings of others. Post crisis, the lessons learned sessions are only accomplished by finding the time to draw the team together after the crisis is over. It has been observed that there is often no real desire to do this as the crisis team members are simply keen to return to their day jobs. “Everyone is so busy in the business that once something is resolved, there is no real opportunity or really an appetite to get together and do that” (SME1, 2017, p. 3). This attitude must be overcome to ensure that data sources exist to enhance the training program and participant
experiences. There are numerous ways to do this. The most effective is for a business to formalise it as a governance requirement, thus it becomes mandatory to conduct a process review prior to the case closure. To obtain this executive endorsement is critical as it will drive the organisational compliance.
Linked closely to the discussions and views on training were mechanisms to enhance the overall training and actual response capabilities. A core theme that emerged was the importance that technology can play as a response enabler. Some of the subject matter experts wondered if, with all the advances in technology since the tools were designed in 2001, there was a way in which the tools could in fact be automated (SME22, 2016, p. 8). SME6 argued that there is an immense opportunity to leverage software and develop by way of example an “app to guide the conversation and if you have not yet fulfilled the actions that are needed in the process step you are not allowed to the second or third or fourth” (SME6, 2016, p. 4) steps. However, if the checklist is too rigid it would have the potential of becoming a ‘READ-DO’ checklist, controlling the thinking and removing innovation which ensure that the resolution is carried out in a timely manner. Checklists do have a role to play. However, this is arguably more with respect to the confirmation checklist modelling style. Therefore this would require any application to provide flexibility for the team to move efficiently through the processes, while
minimising the risk of process deviation (SME11, 2017). It would be critical here to ensure that the automated tools are embraced. Simply creating a new automated artefact does not necessarily translate to utilisation and the risk of process deviation would not be mitigated if the medium was simply changed.