**4. Training**

Plans are only 'fantasy documents' if they have no real implementation through training ([39], p. 2). Exercises also may only be preparation in fantasy if not implemented conscientiously. When planning disaster training exercises, we should consider our purposes. Is the intent to expose participants to the disaster response plan or their roles in the organizational structure? Is it to test the implantation of the response plan, to expose its weaknesses and oversights? This is often the objective, intended or not ([40], p. 277). Evaluation and improvement of disaster plans may be a useful objective if that is the need [31]. But simply observing shortcomings does not itself remedy them. Lessons "identified" does not mean lessons "learned" ([40], p. 280) Is the intent to learn from or improve collaboration with other agencies? Is the intent to improve decision-making and specific skills? These are all valid objectives and need to be determined to meet the organization's needs, lest any coincidental success be wrongly attributed to ineffective plans [41]. Disaster training should focus on adaptability. "Exercises and training on how to be creative and imaginative under such circumstances would be more useful than detailed disaster plans" ([25], p. 376).

*A month later…*

*"We just need to stick to the plan next time," Jan said, the last part sounding like a question. The storm was a memory like a bad dream. The town meeting, those who were left, was about getting ready for the next one.*

*The plan was new to almost everyone. Ros dug up some dusty old binder a few days ago. Too bad it made it, untouched, through the storm. It was full of detailed instructions about houses reporting to block leaders, block leaders reporting to councillors, councillors to the mayor, the mayor to the assistance team that was supposed to come from Alec, the capital city. Only thing was, households were all rearranged, trying to find somewhere dry to sleep. The block leaders didn't even know who they were, the mayor didn't have any councillors, and the team, well, not sure there ever was one.*

#### **4.1 Barriers to effective exercises**

Disaster exercises may not accomplish what is intended during their design [20]. Excessive complexity, targeting the wrong audience, and unforeseen social psychological effects are some of the problems that can impair the efficacy of disaster education.

**Complexity.** More complex does not mean better when it comes to training exercises [21]. Thinking that testing more skills will improve more skills, stressing more processes will improve more processes, and designing more complex scenarios will enhance a greater repertoire of individual and systemic responses is flawed.

**13**

*Disaster Management: A State-of-the-Art Review DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94489*

in [21], p. 423).

benefitting.

**4.2 Benefits**

capacities [46, 48].

The opposite can occur. Complexity can obscure the purpose of the exercise, lead to passivity among participants, and decrease collaboration [42]. Complexity can also interfere with learning [20]. Complex responses may be better trained by simple exercises. The goal is internal complexity with external simplicity (Loveluck cited

**Leaders versus participants.** Many exercises benefit the designers and facilitators more than the participants [20, 21]. This may be effective when that is the goal. Some exercises explicitly target leaders and not participants [43]. But often, the intent is to train participants. Even when that is the stated objective, participants may not see it that way [44]. Facilities and educators may not be training who they hope to train. It is important to consider who the exercise is for, and who is actually

**Social psychological.** Recognizing that crisis simulations are meant to evoke some stress in individuals and organizations, some researchers have examined the adverse social and psychological effects of exercises [20, 43]. Sometimes "unintended consequences" of these effects can appear as a failure to participate when trainees fear evaluation from superiors ([20], p. 422). Supervisors giving feedback can reinforce incorrect behaviors if hierarchical relationships are ignored [20].

There is no doubt that planning and training is key to disaster preparedness [41]. Disaster exercises are beneficial when objectives are clear, and debriefing is effective. When objectives are appropriate and align with needs, response capacities improve. Debriefing helps with this and with all aspects of learning and growth.

**Clearly defined objectives.** Objectives should identify whether the purpose of the exercise is evaluation or training, individual skills or collaboration, crisis or emergency response. Experts commonly identify the need for objectives to guide disaster exercises [20, 45]. Yet hospital exercises often do not include specific objectives [46] or have not clearly defined them [47]. Objectives help operationalize disaster training. That means we can identify what we wish to improve, measure to see if we have improved, and actually improve in the desired area [20, 21, 43, 46]. In many cases, the method of training and objectives of an exercise is not complementary and do not create the conditions for improvement in operational

**Disaster vs emergency, stability vs flexibility, training vs drills.** Disasters and emergencies are different events and require different responses [21]. Training for emergencies requires drills, practicing being able to perform planned responses to anticipated events [20, 42, 51]. In a disaster, responses outside an organization's policies and protocols are required [20, 44]. Training for disaster ideally trains flexibility, communication, and the ability to work across organizational boundaries [20, 21]. **Collaboration.** Disasters require interactions across and within organizations that is outside of usual lines of communication [20]. Collaboration, then, is key. Collaborative communication can help organizations recognize crises in the first place [49] and throughout the event. If there are barriers to effective communication across organizational boundaries, the response will be less timely, flexible, and effective [51]. We should prepare for the need to collaborate through practice

**Debriefing.** "… the only reason for running a simulation is so that an exercise can be debriefed" (Thiagarjan cited in [20], p. 421). Debriefing is essential in order for learning to occur [20, 49]. Debriefing helps accomplish objectives, be they developing plans, training existing skills, or learning new things [50]. Learning from an

The debrief is one of the most important parts of effective exercise.

working within new relationships and organizational structures [25].

*Disaster Management: A State-of-the-Art Review DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94489*

The opposite can occur. Complexity can obscure the purpose of the exercise, lead to passivity among participants, and decrease collaboration [42]. Complexity can also interfere with learning [20]. Complex responses may be better trained by simple exercises. The goal is internal complexity with external simplicity (Loveluck cited in [21], p. 423).

**Leaders versus participants.** Many exercises benefit the designers and facilitators more than the participants [20, 21]. This may be effective when that is the goal. Some exercises explicitly target leaders and not participants [43]. But often, the intent is to train participants. Even when that is the stated objective, participants may not see it that way [44]. Facilities and educators may not be training who they hope to train. It is important to consider who the exercise is for, and who is actually benefitting.

**Social psychological.** Recognizing that crisis simulations are meant to evoke some stress in individuals and organizations, some researchers have examined the adverse social and psychological effects of exercises [20, 43]. Sometimes "unintended consequences" of these effects can appear as a failure to participate when trainees fear evaluation from superiors ([20], p. 422). Supervisors giving feedback can reinforce incorrect behaviors if hierarchical relationships are ignored [20].
