Communication Interface for Virtual Training of Crisis Management


Published on

Jan Rudinsky, and Ebba Thora Hvannberg on "Communication Interface for Virtual Training of Crisis Management" at ISCRAM 2013 in Baden-Baden.

10th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management
12-15 May 2013, Baden-Baden, Germany

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Presentation – 20 min ~ 15 slides
  • A CRISIS project develops the idea of a training in a virtual environment. Virtual environments have recently been quite influenced by online multiplayer games. They provide an opportunity for training of coordination and communication.Training in VE would allow to train frequently and setup on-demand training.Once a scenario is developed it can be reused at another training. Plus the training will be easily reconfigurable.The project’s focus is to train for problem understanding and solving rather than procedure drill.There is the advantage of lower costs and that the system would allow to test new procedures.From the training point of view recording of action becomes simple and allows better after action review.Crisis is a three-year project funded by EU that is about to complete its first year. There are 13 partners from both research and development organizations. The project focus is set on the aviation domain.
  • Thegroupspresent at thescene, CAP or RVP movebetweenmanylocations and arestationaryonlytemporarily at theselocations.
  • Firstresponders and low-levelcomandsonthescenecommunicate in dynamicgroupswherecommunicationcounterpartscanchangewithtime. Commandergroupshaveestablishedcounterparts. Groupsthatmovebetweenlocations or arepresent at a locationhwerepeoplethatcome and og engage in FTF withothergroups.
  • Two first responder and twocommanderroleswereanalysed. Consecutive and simultanouschannelsusedanalysed. There is a difference in thestimulus of thecommunication (i.e. the when) At both command centers a status meeting is an important means of communication. It is triggered by time.
  • Theanswertotheoverallquestiononwhether it is possibletosimplifythecomm. Userinterface as a singleunifiedinterface for all is negative.
  • Communication Interface for Virtual Training of Crisis Management

    1. 1. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)under grant agreement n° FP7-242474.Communication Interface for Virtual Training ofCrisis ManagementJan Rudinsky, Ebba Thora HvannbergUniversity of
    2. 2. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedProcess flowPlanTrainEvaluate
    3. 3. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedTraining in Virtual Environment CRitical Incident management training Systemusing an Interactive Simulation environment— Plan: Variable uncertainty framework allows theinstructor to plan reusable training scenarios of varyinglevels of complexity— Train: The exercise is run inside the XVR trainingenvironment, presenting trainees with a complex3D view of the scene.— Evaluate: An after action review system allows instructorsto provide quick and detailed feedback to the traineesthrough the use of data visualisations and acommunication playback feature.— CRISIS is a EU-FP7 three-year project with 13 partners
    4. 4. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedCommunication in Crisis To coordinate, plan and makedecisions, crisis managementneeds to communicate withinteams and between teams Communication has beenstudied extensively withrespect to what messages aredelivered, how, by whom,where and when Communication is studied atthe technical, organisationaland social level
    5. 5. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved1. Assess alert2. Assess risk3. Categorise crisis4. Communicate5. Communicate information6. Leadership7. Familiarise with procedures8. Formulate handling strategy9. Prioritise information10. Recognise strengths and weaknesses11. Resist pressure12. Take controlCompetency-based TrainingThe 12 Training Gaps
    6. 6. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedDifferent from previous studies Major incidents Extends across manyemergency services Includes all command levels Focuses on verbal synchronouscommunications
    7. 7. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
    8. 8. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedTraining in a Virtual Environment A simulated environmentoffers to save preparation timeand resources Designing a simulatedenvironment forcommunication is complexbecause of the number of rolesand the number of channels
    9. 9. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedGoal of the research We aimed to find out if a communication interface could besimplified as a single, unified interface for all, i.e. multi-role. Using data from a large real life exercise, we wanted toanalyze the complex communication network of crisismanagement and suggest how it could be simplified in atraining simulator.
    10. 10. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedResearch questions RO1: Find the selection of the most useful communicationmetaphors that would determine basic interface features.— Would a single communication metaphor (e.g. face-to-face ortelecommunication) be sufficient for all? RO2: Analyze the communication groups in the complexcommunication structure to find out if the groups’ size can bereduced or group members can be predefined.— What groups are involved in the communication hierarchy?— Can there be a single group with a set of characteristics that representthem all?
    11. 11. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved RO3: Analyze the communication flow between roles within andacross the borders of the groups to identify the differencesbetween roles’ use of communication channels (i.e.communication flow).Research questions
    12. 12. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedData collection Real-life exercise simulating a plane crash at an internationalairport involving fire fighters, medical services, police, searhc andrescue, Red Cross and airline and airport services 250 participants were observed by 9 people A protocol was followed and instances recorded. All data records (558 records) were stored in an online databaseand classified according to the place of origin, type of activity, e.g.command & control and registration & counting.
    13. 13. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedData classification vs. LocationOSCEOCAccSite
    14. 14. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedPrimary communication channels 36% of the records were communicationrecords Each was decomposed into pairs of roleand communication channel for verbal andnon-verbal communications – produced349 pairs 31 unique roles via four communicationchannels: face-to-face, radio, mobilephone and landline
    15. 15. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedCommunication channel use per location
    16. 16. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedCommunication groups consolidationSub-location Size of groups Roles Mobility Communi-cationMeeting point one group ofthree officersand peoplewaiting in carsFirstrespondersOfficers movearound thelocationcan engage inFTF, monitorradioGate one group offive officersand peoplearriving in carsFirstrespondersOfficers movearound thelocationcan engage inFTF, monitorradioRendezvous Point
    17. 17. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedFirst responder and commander groups
    18. 18. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedBetween and within groupsStarting outsideEoCStarting within OSC
    19. 19. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedRoles and Information Flow between GroupsFeature Group First respondergroupCommandergroupFace-to-face Yes YesRadio Yes YesMobile phone In exceptionalcasesIn exceptionalcasesComputer as asource/sinkNo YesMobility ofmembersYes Only inexceptional casesConsecutive use Yes YesSimultaneous use Yes Yes
    20. 20. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedConclusion RO1: Most useful communication metaphors that woulddetermine basic interface features.— Face-to-face is dominant but radio is essential— In cases where normal media is unsuccessful trainees use alternatives,such as mobile RO2: Can groups’ size be reduced or group members can bepredefined.— First commander group (2-4 persons) Commander groups (10 persons)— First responders and low-level commanders communicate in dynamicgroups— High-level command operates in predefined groups with establishedcounterparts
    21. 21. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedConclusionHigh frequencyof FTF but occ. radioHigh mobilityTransition layerMore use of radioMedium mobilityLow mobility
    22. 22. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedAcknowledgement
    23. 23. ©2011CRISIS All rights reservedThank you for your attentionEbba Thora HvannbergUniversity of