设计和促进桌面危机练习的专家建议:德尔菲研究

IF 4.7 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL
Keira Wallace , Alex Bollfrass , Owen Cooper , Dan Epstein , Steven Forrest , Heide Lukosch , Roger Mason , Kenny Meesters , Simon Reid , Sara Waring , Nicolas Widmer , Michael Noetel
{"title":"设计和促进桌面危机练习的专家建议:德尔菲研究","authors":"Keira Wallace ,&nbsp;Alex Bollfrass ,&nbsp;Owen Cooper ,&nbsp;Dan Epstein ,&nbsp;Steven Forrest ,&nbsp;Heide Lukosch ,&nbsp;Roger Mason ,&nbsp;Kenny Meesters ,&nbsp;Simon Reid ,&nbsp;Sara Waring ,&nbsp;Nicolas Widmer ,&nbsp;Michael Noetel","doi":"10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Crises are destabilising, and crisis exercises are one of the core ways that organisations and governments prepare. Not all crisis exercises achieve their goals, and determining how to design them well is difficult to test experimentally. This study aims to identify the key goals of discussion-based crisis exercises, the features of exercises that are important for achieving the organisation’s goals, and common mistakes. We used a three-round Delphi Method to harness the collective expertise of 16 researchers and professionals. In the first round, experts identified 40 different exercise features. After a further two rounds, consensus was achieved for 29 of the 40 exercise features. Overall, experts agreed on the critical importance of clear objectives, good facilitation, and quality debriefing. Experts also agreed that features such as fidelity and the explicit use of decision-making tools were not essential to achieving the aims of discussion-based exercises. There was disagreement amongst experts regarding how much say the sponsor should have, how actively involved facilitators should be, and how accountable responders should be held. Overall, these findings are beneficial for exercise designers in highlighting what features to prioritise when designing and delivering discussion-based exercises to best promote organisational learning.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21375,"journal":{"name":"Safety Science","volume":"189 ","pages":"Article 106898"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expert-derived recommendations for designing and facilitating tabletop crisis exercises: A Delphi study\",\"authors\":\"Keira Wallace ,&nbsp;Alex Bollfrass ,&nbsp;Owen Cooper ,&nbsp;Dan Epstein ,&nbsp;Steven Forrest ,&nbsp;Heide Lukosch ,&nbsp;Roger Mason ,&nbsp;Kenny Meesters ,&nbsp;Simon Reid ,&nbsp;Sara Waring ,&nbsp;Nicolas Widmer ,&nbsp;Michael Noetel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106898\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Crises are destabilising, and crisis exercises are one of the core ways that organisations and governments prepare. Not all crisis exercises achieve their goals, and determining how to design them well is difficult to test experimentally. This study aims to identify the key goals of discussion-based crisis exercises, the features of exercises that are important for achieving the organisation’s goals, and common mistakes. We used a three-round Delphi Method to harness the collective expertise of 16 researchers and professionals. In the first round, experts identified 40 different exercise features. After a further two rounds, consensus was achieved for 29 of the 40 exercise features. Overall, experts agreed on the critical importance of clear objectives, good facilitation, and quality debriefing. Experts also agreed that features such as fidelity and the explicit use of decision-making tools were not essential to achieving the aims of discussion-based exercises. There was disagreement amongst experts regarding how much say the sponsor should have, how actively involved facilitators should be, and how accountable responders should be held. Overall, these findings are beneficial for exercise designers in highlighting what features to prioritise when designing and delivering discussion-based exercises to best promote organisational learning.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21375,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Safety Science\",\"volume\":\"189 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106898\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Safety Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753525001237\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Safety Science","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753525001237","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

危机是不稳定的,危机演习是组织和政府准备的核心方式之一。并不是所有的危机演习都能达到目的,而且如何设计好这些演习也很难通过实验来检验。本研究旨在确定基于讨论的危机练习的关键目标,对实现组织目标很重要的练习特征,以及常见错误。我们使用了三轮德尔菲法来利用16名研究人员和专业人员的集体专业知识。在第一轮中,专家们确定了40种不同的运动特征。再经过两轮讨论,各方就40个演练特征中的29个达成了共识。总的来说,专家们一致认为,明确的目标、良好的促进和高质量的汇报至关重要。专家们还一致认为,忠实度和明确使用决策工具等特征对于实现以讨论为基础的练习的目标并非必不可少。专家们在主办者应该有多少发言权,促进者应该如何积极参与,以及应对者应该如何负责等问题上存在分歧。总的来说,这些发现有助于运动设计师在设计和提供基于讨论的运动时突出哪些特征是优先考虑的,以最好地促进组织学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Expert-derived recommendations for designing and facilitating tabletop crisis exercises: A Delphi study
Crises are destabilising, and crisis exercises are one of the core ways that organisations and governments prepare. Not all crisis exercises achieve their goals, and determining how to design them well is difficult to test experimentally. This study aims to identify the key goals of discussion-based crisis exercises, the features of exercises that are important for achieving the organisation’s goals, and common mistakes. We used a three-round Delphi Method to harness the collective expertise of 16 researchers and professionals. In the first round, experts identified 40 different exercise features. After a further two rounds, consensus was achieved for 29 of the 40 exercise features. Overall, experts agreed on the critical importance of clear objectives, good facilitation, and quality debriefing. Experts also agreed that features such as fidelity and the explicit use of decision-making tools were not essential to achieving the aims of discussion-based exercises. There was disagreement amongst experts regarding how much say the sponsor should have, how actively involved facilitators should be, and how accountable responders should be held. Overall, these findings are beneficial for exercise designers in highlighting what features to prioritise when designing and delivering discussion-based exercises to best promote organisational learning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Safety Science
Safety Science 管理科学-工程:工业
CiteScore
13.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
335
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Safety Science is multidisciplinary. Its contributors and its audience range from social scientists to engineers. The journal covers the physics and engineering of safety; its social, policy and organizational aspects; the assessment, management and communication of risks; the effectiveness of control and management techniques for safety; standardization, legislation, inspection, insurance, costing aspects, human behavior and safety and the like. Papers addressing the interfaces between technology, people and organizations are especially welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信