Introduction

The present requirement for social distancing makes it difficult to maintain conventional crisis training practices. Nevertheless, there is still a need to train because not even a prolonged crisis will cover all aspects of crisis management. We present some findings from a crisis management table-top exercise performed with four managers in February-2020 in a learning management system (LMS) as part of an R&D project aiming to develop a concept for digitally supported exercises that opens for continuous exercises with different challenges. This particular exercise took place before the participants’ organisation activated its crisis team due to the Covid-19 outbreak. However, our follow-up interviews were conducted after the participants had been working three times a week, for several weeks, in crisis team meetings via Zoom. The purpose of this presentation is to illuminate one aspect of constant crisis response: how managers react to the simultaneous need to do crisis training during an ongoing crisis. 

Case Description

The case exercise was based on six modules including an evaluation questionnaire . The mainly asynchronous modules were activated at a certain day, at a certain time, and participants were expected to give comments within 4h – it is often not detrimental if someone is delayed, except for one module, which runs synchronously like a chat function or as a video or physical meeting. In the case exercise, four managers from three units participated besides the security coordinator of the organisation, who had participated in three similar exercises before while only one of the managers had done so. In order to avoid negotiating the managers’ calendars, the activation of the modules were spread over a 12-day period, some in the mornings, some at lunch hour.

Ideas emerging from the interviews

The responses did not indicate that the participants preferred the more realistic exercise form of synchronous communication over the less interactive asynchronous mode but they gave suggestions to chisel out the synchronous and asynchronous traits even more: while the participants were less happy with the written chat and preferred video or physical meeting for the synchronous module, they were of the opinion that the asynchronous modules should be more based on independent work. However, few went back to see other participants previous comments. More explicit instructions to check previous modules can possibly make asynchronous modules better at training information exchange.

Having individual questionnaires were both questioned, as evaluation briefings are normally done with the whole group, and appreciated, as it reduces group pressure and promotes more reflection. Also the individual interviews were liked for the latter reason. The interviews were conducted in Zoom with screen sharing of exercise discussions; this walkthrough of the completed exercise could possibly be part of a final questionnaire a week or two after an exercise.

Most interestingly, participants would have liked continued exercising with more specific information about the scenario or simply a new exercise, whether digital or physical. Thus, in spite of the intensive ongoing crisis, these managers could see the value of this form of supplementary crisis training.