Life and Death Decision Making - Rob Honey Flashcards
(background):
Give some brief history for the study.
(background):
Our research started in late 2013 and is ongoing.
It initially involved individual decision making in incident commanders in the UK FRS.
It quickly developed to include (multi-agency) group decision making at major incidents.
Our approach is rooted in the naturalistic decision making tradition: real world, high stakes, dynamic and complex, with uncertain outcomes.
(background):
What are some reasons to research the fire and rescue department.
(background):
700,000 calls per year
Economic cost
£8.3bn
Environmental cost
135k tonnes CO2
Human cost
9000 people
Improving the safety of Firefighters
2523 Firefighters injured
(background):
What is the role of incident commanders in the UK FRS
(background) :
1. Gather information that is relevant to the incident, resources, and hazards: Situation Assessment.
2. Identify objectives and develop a tactical plan where suitable actions are selected: Plan Formulation.
3. Selected actions are communicated to those who will implement them; and subsequent activity is controlled by the incident commander to ensure it is carried out appropriately and effectively: Plan Execution.
(Honey’s study):
How did they decide to assess incident commander’s decision-making? in real life events
(Honey’s study):
Record real incidents and code the process of decision making in terms of situation assessment, plan formulation and plan execution.
Interviews weren’t enough, potential for them to not remember things accurately. Self presentation, they’ll try to say what they think they should.
(Honey’s study):
How many incidents did they study? in real life events
(Honey’s study):
A sample of 33
(Honey’s study):
What were the results of the real life events?
(Honey’s study):
(see 13 + 14 slide)
An overwhelming proportion of decisions to commit to a course of action were made without explicit plan formulation; and were perhaps engendered by previous experience (e.g., Klein, 1993): the decisions were “intuitive” as opposed to “analytic”.
These results were sufficiently concerning that, with the support of the NFCC, UK FRS and NOG, we proceeded to examine whether explicit plan formulation could be encouraged through training in what we called “decision controls”.
(Honey’s study):
Describe the VR experimental procedure.
(Honey’s study):
- Why am I doing this (i.e., what are my goals)?
- What do I expect to happen (i.e., what are the anticipated consequences)?
- Are the benefits worth the risks?
In three experiments, commanders were randomly assigned to receive computer-based decision control training or standard training during a video presentation of an incident.
They then responded to a series of simulated incidents either in virtual reality or on the training ground (a house fire, road traffic collision, and a skip fire), or a house fire at a “live burn”.
(Honey’s study):
What were the results of the VR experiment?
(Honey’s study):
see slides 19 + 20 + doc
(Honey’s study):
What influence did this study lead to?
(Honey’s study):
The results led to new guidance and training.
QUESTIONS + ANSWERS
- They knew the house fire were fake, however they were summoned to it like in real life (from fire station, got a call and then had to go there)
- They knew they were involved in the training exercises, but they do go through this training anyway as their job. There is some face validity to it
- They were debriefed
- Live burn condition - 10-15 in each condition (he said he doesn’t really remember the number)
Read through rest of doc/slides if you want, don’t think it’s that relevant tho.
keep it up :)
