2. TEAM TRAINING IN THE NAVAL MILITARY CONTEXT

The participation of embarked personnel implies performing tasks in a highly dynamic environment in which the only certainty is that the right solution may not always be the same, the possible or even the one that seems clear to all the crew members (Espevik and Olsen, Reference Espevik and Olsen2013). In fact, it depends on factors such as personality, type of task or even individual development (Cordón et al., Reference Cordón, Olivier, Sedeño and Martín2014). Thus, on the one hand, it is clear that organisational realities such as the armed forces are highly complex (Salas et al., Reference Salas, Rosen, Weaver, Held and Weissmuller2009; Espevik and Olsen, Reference Espevik and Olsen2013), and, on the other hand, it is crucial to identify which may be the best skills, technical and non-technical, that each crew member should have in order to overcome such factors.

The complexity associated with naval operations and the use of a variety of equipment on a ship, together with the evolution of the technology associated with military training, has put a growing importance on training of actual and future crew members (van den Bosch and Riemersma, Reference Van den Bosch, Riemersma, Elliott, Coovert and Schiflett2004; Kerry, Reference Kerry, Beste, Galanis, Kerry and Sotilare2013; Freeman and Zachary, Reference Freeman, Zachary, Johnston, Sottilare, Sinatra and Burke2018). NSC states that crew members should ‘have an excellent knowledge of the layout of the ship and its safety equipment’ (NSC, 2019a, p. XX), as well as information concerning the foreseeable operations on which their vessel might be engaged (NSC, 2019a). As such, their training should achieve the understanding of common goals, flawless coordination and cooperation, as well as resource and constraint awareness regarding the performance of different tasks (Espevik and Olsen, Reference Espevik and Olsen2013), while predicting errors and safety failures (Fjeld et al., Reference Fjeld, Tvedt and Oltedal2018). Furthermore, this training should allow for the development of higher levels of situational awareness, improving the alertness of team members, while fine-tuning their communication and decision-making skills in order to achieve the best possible performance, even when in more complex situations (Graff and Clark, Reference Graff and Clark2018; Kanki, Reference Kanki, Kanki, Anca and Chidester2019).

Onboard ship, each team is composed of two or more individuals performing interdependent tasks, as is the case of the bridge team (Espevik and Olsen, Reference Espevik and Olsen2013). They must ‘integrate, synthetize and share information as well as coordinate and cooperate to fulfil the missions as the tasks change’ (Espevik and Olsen, Reference Espevik and Olsen2013, p. 89), respecting the hierarchical military system (Hontvedt and Arnseth, Reference Hontvedt and Arnseth2013; Goodwin et al., Reference Goodwin, Blacksmith and Coats2018). This hierarchical system is dependent on the command function that is attributed to the commanding officers. These officers have the necessary authority to direct, coordinate and control military forces or units under their command (Arbuthnot and Flin, Reference Arbuthnot, Flin, Flin and Arbuthnot2017). In practice, for them to perform this command function leadership is a fundamental skill (Arbuthnot and Flin, Reference Arbuthnot, Flin, Flin and Arbuthnot2017). It implies different elements, like the use of authority, planning, prioritisation, workload management and resources allocation (Flin et al., Reference Flin, O'Connor and Crichton2013). However, it is important to clarify that, although in a military context all leadership elements may be delegated, an exception exists for the use of authority. The commanding officer will always be the authority onboard the ship. For example, the commanding officer may delegate to the officer of the watch (OOW) the ‘responsibility for safe navigation’ (NSC, 2019b, p. Part3-IX-15) but not his or her authority (Larken, Reference Larken, Flin and Arbuthnot2017).

For success, improved safety and performance, it is necessary to train these teams continuously and prepare them for different operation scenarios (Bertram et al., Reference Bertram, Moskaliuk and Cress2015). Military training allows for the development of an individual's ability to apply skills efficiently in adverse situations of fatigue, fear, discomfort and urgency of action, allowing them to fulfil the tasks necessary to complete the mission while undergoing cognitive and behavioural changes (Grossman and Salas, Reference Grossman and Salas2011). These organisations must acknowledge that their workers’ training, namely those that perform tasks in a dynamic environment such as onboard a warship, affects the level and development of their NTS (Nguyen et al., Reference Nguyen, Elliott, Watson and Dominguez2015).

Every organisation's training programmes are developed regarding the type of task performed so that it allows individuals to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge (Rico et al., Reference Rico, Hinsz, Burke and Salas2017). Everyone must have the adequate set of skills that allow them and their teams to achieve their main goal, as well as assessing the present situation through the information gathered from the internal and/or the external environment (Frick et al., Reference Frick, Fletcher, Ramsay and Bedwell2018). In order to achieve an effective solution, Wallace (Reference Wallace, Best, Galanis, Kerry and Sottilare2013) acknowledges that the development of a training programme must include the analysis of the training needs and the study of possible training options for meeting these needs. Effectiveness is obtained when, in the presence of enabling skills, task and team results are collaboratively achieved (Baninajarian and Abdullah, Reference Baninajarian and Abdullah2009). For effective teamwork, the following skills are needed and should be considered when training teams: knowledge/cognition, behaviour/skills, attitudes, and team coordination (Salas and Cannon-Bowers, Reference Salas and Cannon-Bowers2001; Rico et al., Reference Rico, Hinsz, Davison and Salas2018). All these skills can be considered NTS, as they allow teams to develop the ability to perform an assigned task adequately with a high level of proficiency (Salas and Cannon-Bowers, Reference Salas and Cannon-Bowers2001). As such, and considering the complexity of the maritime context, training becomes even more essential for teams to achieve efficiency and safety in this context (e.g. Conceição et al., Reference Conceição, Basso, Lopes and Dahlman2017; Fjeld et al., Reference Fjeld, Tvedt and Oltedal2018; Conceição et al., Reference Conceição, Mendes, Teodoro and Dahlman2019), as it contributes to the development of specific military NTS, like situational awareness, decision-making, teamwork or leadership (e.g. O'Connor, Reference O'Connor2011; Hardison et al., Reference Hardison, Sahnley, Saavedra, Crowley, Wong and Steinberg2015; Röttger et al., Reference Röttger, Vetter and Kowalski2016; Sellberg, Reference Sellberg2017).

It is important to recognise, however, that training that allows teams to perform in complex environments (e.g. scenarios where armed forces missions usually take place) implies alternative methodologies such as simulated context training. This type of training adds value as it ‘provides opportunities to practice performance in simulated environments that faithfully replicate important features of the real world’ (Salas et al., Reference Salas, Rosen, Weaver, Held and Weissmuller2009, p. 329). Furthermore, training in a simulated context has proved to be beneficial for the acquisition and transfer of NTS from training to the actual job (Nguyen et al., Reference Nguyen, Elliott, Watson and Dominguez2015). Particularly, in the military naval context, simulation-based training has revealed a positive effect on NTS skills development and training of navy bridge officers (Conceição et al., Reference Conceição, Basso, Lopes and Dahlman2017; Sellberg, Reference Sellberg2017).

Given this, we propose that training that promotes the complementarity between TS and NTS is crucial in organisations where the need to replicate ‘real world’ conditions is a requirement for safety.

3. BRIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND THE MINIMISATION OF HUMAN ERROR

Bridge resource management (BRM), considered by IMO as the most adequate way to train teams in maritime environments, has its origin in crew resource management (CRM). CRM was introduced by United Airlines in the early 1980s (Flin et al., Reference Flin, O'Connor and Crichton2013) and is mandatory for flight crew members worldwide (O'Connor et al., Reference O'Connor, Hahn, Nullmeyer, Montijo, Kanki, Anca and Chidester2019). CRM has its roots in the premise that human error is inevitable, and that it is necessary to know how to manage such error. Because of this, CRM was developed aiming to improve crew members’ effective communication and teamwork, and their ability to use all available resources (Fisher, Reference Fisher2000), through a process of experiential learning (Yousefi and Seyedjavadin, Reference Yousefi, Seyedjavadin, Weintrit and Neumann2012). As such, CRM implied improving the crew teams’ coordination and performance by training them to use all the available resources (e.g. people, equipment, information) (Salas et al., Reference Salas, Wilson, Burke and Wightman2006). In order to do this, it required the application of well-tested training tools (e.g. performance measurements, exercises, feedback mechanisms) and appropriate training methods (e.g. simulators, speeches, videos) aiming at specific content (e.g. teamwork, knowledge, skills and attitudes) (Salas et al., Reference Salas, Prince, Bowers, Stout, Oser and Cannon-Bowers1999).

Nowadays CRM is one of the most widely used tools for team strategic training (O'Connor, Reference O'Connor2011; Hefner et al., Reference Hefner, Hilligoss, Knupp, Bournique, Sullivan, Adkins and Moffatt-Bruce2018). It aims to modify the individual's safety attitudes, by underlining the importance of NTS that may lead to the improvement of team development and decision-making and to higher safety levels (Noord et al., Reference Noord, de Bruijne, Twisk, van Dyck and Wagner2015). NTS, complementary to TS (Fjeld et al., Reference Fjeld, Tvedt and Oltedal2018), include cognitive and social skills, personal resources that allow individuals to contribute with a safer and more efficient role when working in high-risk environments, such as the armed forces and the emergency services (Flin et al., Reference Flin, O'Connor and Crichton2013). Skills such as briefing, assertiveness related to the task, team adaptability and shared situational awareness (Salas et al., Reference Salas, Wilson, Burke and Wightman2006), interpersonal relations, team coordination (Powell and Hill, Reference Powell and Hill2006), decision making, communication, teamwork, leadership, stress and fatigue management (Flin et al., Reference Flin, O'Connor and Crichton2013) are classed as NTS.

Although initially CRM was only meant for training civil aviation personnel, its added value to safe working led to it being used in other areas, such as fire departments, nuclear power plants, health care, railways, offshore facilities and shipping (Flin et al., Reference Flin, O'Connor and Crichton2013; Hefner et al., Reference Hefner, Hilligoss, Knupp, Bournique, Sullivan, Adkins and Moffatt-Bruce2017). Specifically, in the early 1990s, the maritime industry adopted BRM, a new training methodology adapted from CRM. BRM refers to the effective management and use of all human and technical resources available to the bridge team, so that the ship's mission is completed safely (Patraiko, Reference Patraiko and Ward2014).

Initially, BRM was meant to enhance the relationship of the ship's captain and bar pilot, but it became more embracing and focused on the safety and performance of all crew members (O'Connor, Reference O'Connor2011). As such, every crew member now had not only the right but also the responsibility of speaking whenever they considered necessary, with team leaders encouraging and rewarding this type of behaviour in their crew members (Ornato and Peberdy, Reference Ornato and Peberdy2014). Effective communication was found to be fundamental for task coordination, defining and accomplishing goals as well as improving safety operation in complex systems (Kanki, Reference Kanki, Kanki, Anca and Chidester2019), a key point for military naval operations. Enhancing communication between interdependent teams is achieved through the combined effect of what is communicated and how it is accomplished (Graff and Clark, Reference Graff and Clark2018).

Given the changes introduced by the STCW Convention & Code 2010 Manila Amendments (IMO, 2010), new requirements arose for the training of maritime environmental awareness, leadership and teamwork, making the certification in BRM mandatory for the merchant marine since 2017. But what about the naval military context? There is still little evidence regarding the application of BRM in the military navy. O'Connor (Reference O'Connor2011) reports that this training methodology was introduced in the training programmes of the Surface Warfare Officers School (SWOS) of the U.S. Navy in 2006. In his study, results indicated that the U.S Navy's BRM training was not having the impact on knowledge and attitudes that is typical of the CRM training reported in the literature. The author argued that the main reason for the programme's lack of effectiveness was that the content of the training did not consider the surface warfare community's needs assessment. More recently, Röttger et al. (Reference Röttger, Vetter and Kowalski2016), in line with the previous study, found that the linkage between attitude towards NTS and performance, during a real-world naval exercise by the German naval academy, was not linear. Behaviour and performance were less effective in officers with negative attitudes towards NTS and equally effective in officers with slightly positive and very positive attitudes towards NTS. In short, it can be said that both studies draw attention to the lack of NTS training needs assessment at the military navy level, when there is an intention to apply or even application of BRM training to a ship's crew. In this sense, it becomes clear that the feasibility of BRM training should be determined for its target population. That said, if we consider that, upon a proper assessment of the BRM training needs, BRM training, in line with the CRM literature, will increase individual NTS, and an individual's, and team's ability to respond to quick changes, then it can be presumed that BRM training is in itself a suitable form of training for navy teams. Further, there is reported evidence of the importance of BRM training for safe navigation. This evidence may be found in the accident report developed by the Accident Investigation Board of Norway (AIBN) and the Defense Accident Investigation Board of Norway (DAIBN), regarding the collision between the frigate HNoMS Helge Ingstad and the oil tanker Sola TS, which took place on 8 November 2018. Among the safety recommendations in this report were that the Royal Norwegian Navy should establish systematic BRM training in its bridge teams’ training. By doing so the report highlights the relevance that BRM may have for navy teams (AIBN/DAIBN, 2019). However, how can this be done in practice?

Before proceeding with our reflection on the applicability of BRM training to navy teams, it should be clarified that although military tactical and operational training principles are confidential and cannot be discussed publicly, since they are the responsibility of the naval administration (NSC, 2019b, p. Part3-IX-14), BRM training principles are neither operational nor tactical, as such, if reflected upon, no nation would become vulnerable to enemy attacks. On the contrary, reflection and evidence regarding BRM training in the military navy context will contribute, as with CRM training in the air force context, to personal, team and organisational development. In fact, many researchers have demonstrated that NTS development, the basis for BRM, is important for warship crew members, particularly for navy bridge officers (e.g. O'Connor and Long, Reference O'Connor and Long2011; Sellberg, Reference Sellberg2017; Conceição et al., Reference Conceição, Mendes, Teodoro and Dahlman2019).

The military context is constantly evolving, quickly accumulating information from multiple sources that need to be integrated. To be successful regarding its performance in real time, a navy team must have the ability to act fast and effectively, using the available resources and being able to analyse the situation. For this, prioritisation is necessary by identifying and performing the best strategies for task execution (Grand and Kozlowski, Reference Grand, Kozlowski, Best, Galanis, Kerry and Sottilare2013). Cross-functional operating on warships (Rico et al., Reference Rico, Hinsz, Davison and Salas2018) is possible when self-reliant teams function effectively (Mathieu et al., Reference Mathieu, Luciano, DeChurch, Anderson, Ones, Sinangil and Viswesvaran2017), with coordination being vital for team success (Rico et al., Reference Rico, Hinsz, Davison and Salas2018). An example might elucidate these arguments.

For example, the warship's commanding officer is responsible for leading the bridge team (in some navigation conditions) and the operations room team, contributing to safety and efficient ship operation (Wahl, Reference Wahl2019). Working with these teams, in highly dynamic conditions, implies that the commanding officer, in order to achieve a safe and efficient level of teamwork (Wahl, Reference Wahl2019), must develop incident command skills (Arbuthnot, Reference Arbuthnot, Flin and Arbuthnot2017), grounded on NTS which in turn are developed through BRM training. It is through development of these skills that the commanding officer can better achieve the necessary command and control essential for the authority and direction of the assigned forces (DoD, 2008). Nevertheless, he must do so using the available technology and control function inherent to his hierarchical position (McCann and Pigeau, Reference McCann and Pigeau1996). Although the obligation to act is inherent to the command function of a commanding officer, the responsibility associated with team tasks is not shared between team members; they are supporting structures for the leader's decision-making process (Vogel-Walcutt et al., Reference Vogel-Walcutt, Fiorella and Malone2010; Ornato and Peberdy, Reference Ornato and Peberdy2014). The OOW and the navigation officer support their commanding officer, while performing specific navigation procedures (O'Connor and Long, Reference O'Connor and Long2011). Knowing what each team member can do, and each member's level of expertise, can be achieved through BRM training and through the development of a transactive memory system (Marques-Quinteiro et al., Reference Marques-Quinteiro, Curral, Passos, Lewis and Gomes2019). Shared responsibility, expertise and knowledge can lead to the emergence of shared mental models that allow teams to better understand the situation they are facing, enhancing their perception, interpretation and response to new conditions (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Scott and Abdelfattah2016; Frick et al., Reference Frick, Fletcher, Ramsay and Bedwell2018; Uitdewilligen et al., Reference Uitdewilligen, Rico and Walker2018).

Given this, is becomes clear that BRM training not only allows the development of teamwork skills – technical and non-technical – but also allows their cross-functional operation for safe performance (Tvedt et al., Reference Tvedt, Espevik, Oltedal, Fjeld and Mjelde2018; Saeed et al., Reference Saeed, Bury, Bonsall and Riahi2019). According to the NSC, BRM corresponds to ‘the process of co-ordinating and directing all the available assets of the bridge and its staff for the safe and efficient conduct of navigation’ (NSC, 2019a, p. XIV). These arguments add up, justifying that BRM certification is important for organisations operating in the maritime domain given their focus towards the reduction of human error, occurrence of accidents and collisions (Yousefi and Seyedjavadin, Reference Yousefi, Seyedjavadin, Weintrit and Neumann2012). Furthermore, it is important to remember that human errors occur as a result of a lack of NTS. Weak NTS contribute to the increase of errors; good NTS reduce the probability of error and adverse events (Flint et al., 2013; Flin and Maran, Reference Flin and Maran2015). Several accidents that have occurred in recent decades (e.g. the failure to respond to the fire in the Channel Tunnel in 1996, the shipwreck of Costa Concordia in 2012, the collision between HNOMS Helge Ingstad and oil tanker Sola TS in 2018), have demonstrated that addressing safety problems in the maritime environment cannot be achieved only by using technology or investing on TS development (Flin et al., Reference Flin, O'Connor and Crichton2013). Events classified as foreseeable damage by the NSC, such as navigation errors (e.g. collision) or mal-operation (NSC, 2019a) can arise because of the navigation bridge team's weak NTS, which will affect the correct use of TS. As such, BRM certification should consider the lessons learned from any incident/accident, that are widely communicated, after its investigation (NSC, 2019a). Having information on incident reports, near misses or operational failures, as well as the importance of human factors in their occurrence, is pivotal for designing new training approaches and new regulations (Psarros et al., Reference Psarros, Skjong and Eid2010). Because of such situations, and for increasing safety levels, operating in the maritime environment has recently been subject to the introduction of new regulations as well as new forms of training (Eliopoulou et al., Reference Eliopoulou, Papanikolaou and Voulgarellis2016; Kececi and Arslan, Reference Kececi and Arslan2017). These new regulations cover different areas, from the ship's construction to its operation focusing especially on navigation (Nilsson et al., Reference Nilsson, Gärling and Lützhöft2009).

In sum, it can be assumed that, when both the training need and the training option are acknowledged (Wallace, Reference Wallace, Best, Galanis, Kerry and Sottilare2013), BRM allows the development of NTS (Flin et al., Reference Flin, O'Connor and Crichton2013) which are fundamental to safe operations. These skills are responsible for better performance, between-subject relations (Salas and Cannon-Bowers, Reference Salas and Cannon-Bowers2001) and are the ‘glue’ that sustains teams through time (Hedlund and Österberg, Reference Hedlund and Österberg2013). A well-designed BRM training programme can contribute to better technical performance through time by postponing the decay of TS. But how can we do this? Through the edification of BRM training. This training programme should be adapted to the naval military context and, should be organised at the same time and in line with its technical training. This new training will allow crewmembers, individually and collectively, to develop high levels of TS, as well as the necessary NTS for achieving their assigned mission (Flin et al., Reference Flin, O'Connor and Crichton2013). Furthermore, a cautious design of BRM training, adapted to the naval military context, as developed by Röttger et al. (Reference Röttger, Vetter and Kowalski2016) for the German Naval Academy, through an input-process-outcome approach, can have a positive effect on navy officers’ training. Developing a global behaviour based on NTS inputs (e.g. team leadership, adaptability, team orientation) contributes to team processes (e.g. shared mental models, transactive memory system) which lead to appropriate outcomes, and success of the assigned mission (Tvedt et al., Reference Tvedt, Espevik, Oltedal, Fjeld and Mjelde2018). Also, BRM training should assume goal-based standards, such as those from NSC: this training design would ‘set tiered layers of goals that allow alternative and creative means to be compliant’ (Delpizzo and Valluri, Reference Delpizzo and Valluri2017, p. 76).

In short, BRM training should not be understood as a prescriptive solution for all navy officers, but instead, it should rather be considered as a tool that allows them to develop and increase their individual and collective performance, when considering their individual and collective specificities. Consequently, BRM training would optimise the use of TS by delaying their decay and promoting NTS.

Based on these arguments and keeping in mind that military naval teams have to operate in a safe way in the maritime environment, we propose that BRM is an essential part of military naval team training.