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

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 of
Crisis Management
Jan Rudinsky, Ebba Thora Hvannberg
University of Iceland
ebba@hi.is

2. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Process flow
Plan
Train
Evaluate

3. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Training in Virtual Environment
 CRitical Incident management training System
using an Interactive Simulation environment
— Plan: Variable uncertainty framework allows the
instructor to plan reusable training scenarios of varying
levels of complexity
— Train: The exercise is run inside the XVR training
environment, presenting trainees with a complex
3D view of the scene.
— Evaluate: An after action review system allows instructors
to provide quick and detailed feedback to the trainees
through the use of data visualisations and a
communication playback feature.
— CRISIS is a EU-FP7 three-year project with 13 partners

4. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Communication in Crisis
 To coordinate, plan and make
decisions, crisis management
needs to communicate within
teams and between teams
 Communication has been
studied extensively with
respect to what messages are
delivered, how, by whom,
where and when
 Communication is studied at
the technical, organisational
and social level

5. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
1. Assess alert
2. Assess risk
3. Categorise crisis
4. Communicate
5. Communicate information
6. Leadership
7. Familiarise with procedures
8. Formulate handling strategy
9. Prioritise information
10. Recognise strengths and weaknesses
11. Resist pressure
12. Take control
Competency-based Training
The 12 Training Gaps

6. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Different from previous studies
 Major incidents
 Extends across many
emergency services
 Includes all command levels
 Focuses on verbal synchronous
communications

7. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved

8. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Training in a Virtual Environment
 A simulated environment
offers to save preparation time
and resources
 Designing a simulated
environment for
communication is complex
because of the number of roles
and the number of channels

9. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Goal of the research
 We aimed to find out if a communication interface could be
simplified as a single, unified interface for all, i.e. multi-role.
 Using data from a large real life exercise, we wanted to
analyze the complex communication network of crisis
management and suggest how it could be simplified in a
training simulator.

10. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Research questions
 RO1: Find the selection of the most useful communication
metaphors that would determine basic interface features.
— Would a single communication metaphor (e.g. face-to-face or
telecommunication) be sufficient for all?
 RO2: Analyze the communication groups in the complex
communication structure to find out if the groups’ size can be
reduced 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 represent
them all?

11. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
 RO3: Analyze the communication flow between roles within and
across the borders of the groups to identify the differences
between roles’ use of communication channels (i.e.
communication flow).
Research questions

12. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Data collection
 Real-life exercise simulating a plane crash at an international
airport involving fire fighters, medical services, police, searhc and
rescue, 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 database
and classified according to the place of origin, type of activity, e.g.
command & control and registration & counting.

13. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Data classification vs. Location
OSC
EOC
AccSite

14. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Primary communication channels
 36% of the records were communication
records
 Each was decomposed into pairs of role
and communication channel for verbal and
non-verbal communications – produced
349 pairs
 31 unique roles via four communication
channels: face-to-face, radio, mobile
phone and landline

15. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Communication channel use per location

16. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Communication groups consolidation
Sub-location Size of groups Roles Mobility Communi-
cation
Meeting point one group of
three officers
and people
waiting in cars
First
responders
Officers move
around the
location
can engage in
FTF, monitor
radio
Gate one group of
five officers
and people
arriving in cars
First
responders
Officers move
around the
location
can engage in
FTF, monitor
radio
Rendezvous Point

17. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
First responder and commander groups

18. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Between and within groups
Starting outside
EoC
Starting within OSC

19. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Roles and Information Flow between Groups
Feature Group First responder
group
Commander
group
Face-to-face Yes Yes
Radio Yes Yes
Mobile phone In exceptional
cases
In exceptional
cases
Computer as a
source/sink
No Yes
Mobility of
members
Yes Only in
exceptional cases
Consecutive use Yes Yes
Simultaneous use Yes Yes

20. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Conclusion
 RO1: Most useful communication metaphors that would
determine 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 be
predefined.
— First commander group (2-4 persons) Commander groups (10 persons)
— First responders and low-level commanders communicate in dynamic
groups
— High-level command operates in predefined groups with established
counterparts

21. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Conclusion
High frequency
of FTF but occ. radio
High mobility
Transition layer
More use of radio
Medium mobility
Low mobility

22. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Acknowledgement

23. ©2011CRISIS All rights reserved
Thank you for your attention
Ebba Thora Hvannberg
University of Iceland
ebba@hi.is