Designing, developing and implementing a simulation-based training program takes time, effort and money. I know from my own experience that simulations are powerful training tools, but as an advocate for evidence-based training, I also know the importance of proving the value of the investment.
A review of the current research into the efficacy of simulation training—research that spans a range of applications, including aviation, navigation, medicine, law enforcement and the military—is that carefully crafted and implemented simulation training programs have similar positive results. The measured benefits of simulation training include enhancing the incident size-up, recognizing problems and anomalies faster, having a strong sense of what is going to happen next, avoiding information overload, maintaining “command presence” in the face of uncertainty or time pressure, and finding alternative solutions when “Plan A” runs into trouble.
Virtual reality airframe simulators have become the mainstay of ground-based training for both commercial and military aviation. They allow pilots to learn how to deal with high-risk/low-frequency events (such as a water-based landing) in a controlled environment. The ability to expose operators (company officers and incident commanders) to a wide variety of experiences is where simulations can be put to best use in the fire service.
In his groundbreaking book on intuitive decision-making “Sources of Power,” cognitive scientist and researcher Gary Klein describes the decision-making model that evolved from his research observing and interviewing experienced company officers and battalion chiefs with the Philadelphia Fire Department. Klein terms this model Recognition-Primed Decision-Making (RPD) because he found that expert decision-makers base their actions on reading the critical cues and clues presented by a situation and recognizing a known pattern from their past experience. Working in a predictable environment (one in which the cues and clues are predictive of subsequent events) and having a large body of varied experiences are critical to the development of intuitive decision-making skills.
In today’s fire service, gaining the necessary experience is often difficult. Firefighters are required to be a jack-of-all-trades, managing emergency medicine, hazardous materials, technical rescue, wildland-urban interface, and structural firefighting. Gaining the requisite experience to be a competent decision-maker based solely on actual emergency responses is a near-impossible task. However, this experience gap can be filled by implementing a decision-skills training program.
Decision skills training
The elements of a successful decision-skills training program are fairly simple. First, a regular review of line-of-duty-death (LODD) and near-miss reports can be implemented. Company officers or battalion chiefs can lead these reviews at the firehouse. This type of vicarious learning is a cost-effective way of exposing decision-makers to a large array of different experiences. Both the NIOSH Firefighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program and the National Near Miss Reporting System websites are great sources of free information.
In addition, individual fire departments often make available LODD or critical incident reports to the fire service community. The Fresno Fire Department’s Serious Accident Review Team (SART) report on the Cortland Incident that resulted in the serious burn injuries to Captain Pete Dern is an excellent example of this type of valuable resource.
A word of warning about conducting these reviews: Avoid what has been deemed “hindsight bias” or “Monday morning quarterbacking.” In hindsight, when the outcome of an event is known, the decision points seem obvious. I always advise students to look at the situation through the eyes of those in the middle of the event and ask themselves why what the crews involved were doing made sense to them at the time. This same warning is equally appropriate for the next component of a decision-skills program.
Next, having an official department policy and training on post-incident reviews for all working fires and significant calls is another cost-effective way to share the lessons learned from the incidents to which we respond. This can be as simple as an informal tailboard review at the end of an incident to a more formal written Post-Incident Analysis (PIA) conducted after a near-miss or critical incident.
Lastly, a regular program utilizing incident simulations is the cornerstone of a solid decision-skills training program.
Elements of a simulation training program
The International Fire Service Training Association’s (IFSTA) “Fire and Emergency Services Instructor” 8th edition text describes the four-step method of instruction as: 1) preparation, 2) presentation, 3) application and 4) evaluation. Let’s consider where simulations fall into these four steps.
Although we’ll mainly address simulations as the application step of training, simulations can also be used as part of the evaluation step of training. Many departments employ some form of performance-based certification utilizing simulations to certify company officers and battalion chiefs. Similarly, incident simulations are commonly employed as part of the “Fire Problem” in many promotional assessment centers.
Further, a common mistake I have observed in the use of simulations, particularly in firefighting tactics and incident management training, is employing simulations to replace the presentation step of training. Throwing a group of officers into a simulation lab without doing the upfront work of reviewing standard operating guidelines (SOGs) and department expectations is a recipe for disaster. As retired Phoenix Fire Department Chief Alan Brunacini is fond of saying, “Standard conditions should lead to standard actions and a standard outcome.” There is no substitute for doing this front-end training; participants need to be well-versed in the expected “standard actions” prior to any simulation training.
My personal experience with simulation training began when I participated in a regional delivery of the National Fire Academy’s Fire Command Operations class in April 1995. I learned a great deal about incident management from my Fire Command Operations experience, especially during the simulation (application) portion of the program. One area where the FCO program fell short was in the graphic representation of the fire scenes. Back then there just wasn’t a way to create realistic-looking structure fires. In order to provide students with opportunities to develop intuitive decision-making skills, it is vitally important that simulations include realistic cues and clues that will lead to recognizing patterns and appropriate actions. Simulation technology has advanced significantly in the 20 years since that FCO class. Today’s simulation programs are powerful development tools that make it possible for every fire department and emergency response organization to create realistic structure fire and hazmat scenarios.
Step 1: Find the right person/team
The first step in developing an incident simulation training program is to identify the right person, or more commonly the right team of people, to develop the simulations. A simulation developer must possess certain skills, including computer skills, a sound knowledge of building construction and fire dynamics, a mastery of the department’s operating procedures, and competent photography and photo-editing skills. They will also need the time to design, develop and test the simulations. Far too often the task of developing simulations falls to an already overburdened instructor who simply doesn’t have the time needed to produce quality training content.
Step 2: Determine the objectives
As with any training content, it is essential to first determine the goal and objectives of the training. With simulations, the goal of training is clear: We want the participants to develop intuitive decision-making skills by providing them with the opportunity to respond to simulated incidents on a regular basis. The identified learning objectives are the specific actions that support the overall goal. In this case, the learning objectives include sizing up situations quickly (reading the cues and clues and recognizing the pattern), identifying problems and anomalies, forecasting how the incident is likely to evolve and developing “command presence.” I further refine the learning objectives by putting them in the “SMART” format:
- Specific
- Measurable
- Achievable
- Realistic
- Time-bound
An example of a SMART objective would be “the first on-scene officer will provide an initial size-up report in accordance with the Communications SOG with 100 percent accuracy in less than 45 seconds.” Once the learning objectives are identified, you can use them as the basis for developing work aids and skill sheets.
Step 3: ID the buildings
The next step in the process is to identify the buildings from which you plan to create the simulations. This can be done based on construction type, occupancy or some combination of the two. It is better to start small and work up to larger and more complex scenarios once you are comfortable with the process. A simple size-up exercise is a good place to start. I like to create a simple storyboard of the simulation and use that as a guide when I go out to shoot pictures for the simulation. Once the initial size-up report is communicated, walk the student through a 360-degree tour of the building and have them provide a follow-up report. These simulations are easy to create and a great way to get a simulation program off the ground. My personal experience has been that shorter, more frequent sessions yield the best results.
As your simulations become more complex, having a detailed storyboard is a great aid in designing the simulation and helps to ensure that you take photos of all of the areas you intend to use. I’ll often use situations from actual LODD reports in developing simulations. Find a similar building in your response area and recreate the conditions from the report. It is better to learn the lessons from these events in the simulation lab than out on the street. Building a large inventory of simulations takes time, particularly if you are building multi-company, time-synchronized responses. Whether you are building simple size-up exercises or more complex multi-company simulations, I strongly recommend developing instructor guides for each. An instructor guide helps keep the information and feedback that students receive consistent across multiple instructors.
Step 4: Deploy the simulation
My opinions about the most effective way to deploy a simulation have evolved over the years. I was initially a proponent of having a dedicated computer lab as the place to conduct simulation training, but my experience has been that simulation labs often sit idle due to the costs associated with having to pull units out of service to conduct the training. This is not to say that dedicated Command Training Centers don’t have their place. They are often the best facility to run simulations when the incident command structure is going to involve the assignment of multiple divisions and groups. However, I have found that a more portable iPad or tablet-based program delivered at the battalion level provides the best return on your investment. As I stated earlier, the research indicates that shorter, more frequent sessions are the key to developing and maintaining skill levels. A tablet-based simulation program is an inexpensive way to get simulation training out to the firehouse on a regular basis.
Additionally, I am often asked, “What is the optimal schedule of training to maintain competency?” Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer, as this is an area where more research is needed. The cost of iPads or tablets is decreasing while the technology is maturing. The same can be said for the incident simulation software available for these platforms, which makes the present an ideal time to implement a simulation program in your department.
In sum
The ability to rapidly size-up situations, recognize common patterns and act accordingly are critical skills for company officers and incident commanders. The research is clear that in order to develop these intuitive decision-making skills, we have to get lots of practice across a wide array of responses. We cannot assume that in today’s fire service—where the number of reported structure fires is decreasing, while at the same time, the additional requirements of the job are ever increasing—that the requisite experience can be garnered solely on the fireground. The necessary hardware and software is available at prices that make this training a solid return on investment. Simulation training has more than proven its worth in professions with similar decision-skills training needs. It is time for the fire service to embrace simulation training as well.
