I drafted this for the parallel thread “CRM Dead?”, but my thoughts probably have greater application here.
CRM is not so much dead as it exists in many different guises and thus the original concept has been weakened (ineffective). CRM’s roots in a Western culture (N. America) did not translate easily to other cultures, and thus there have been many adaptations, some better than others; opportunities for further weakness.
Also, perhaps an expectation that ‘effectiveness’ can be measured via accident rates is inappropriate for aspects involving human behaviour. There could be changes in safety statistics, e.g. the relative contribution of adverse human behaviour in accidents, but even this would depend on many other HF interactions and it could be difficult to separate cause from effect.
Many of the varied interpretations of what CRM entails focuses on the Human–Human (L-L) interface of SHELL. Quite often, this limited ‘social’ view excludes the other interfaces and overlooks the Human at the centre of all of the interfaces.
CRM has been overly presented as crew based (team), thus many training implementations attempt to create the team before considering the individual. Behavioural change is primarily an individual aspect, and this and other activities are driven by how an individual thinks – a cognitive issue.
Greater focus on cognition (thinking) should improve aspects of awareness and decision making which in many cases have been treated as add-ons to CRM.
More recently, new initiatives have been introduced to refresh CRM; TEM for example. In one guise TEM is part of CRM, in another, an independent programme, or even the basis of SMS. These aspects only serve to further weaken CRM, either spreading training more thinly or misallocating priorities.
One of the original intentions of CRM was that it should be integrated into everyday operations. In many cases this aspiration has not been achieved. An instructor qualification is essential for training, but overly specific CRM instructors detract from integration. All flight, simulator, or check pilots should be ‘CRM’ instructors; as should all Captains, for their crew.
CRM may not require resuscitating, but does require reinvigorating (a safety tonic in the current harsh commercial climate).
It would be unrealistic to expect a new named initiative to have the required success, nor to expect, or need the many cultural variations to be aligned.
Instead the industry should consider some of the latest views on human performance and safety systems. Within CRM the human should be seen as the source of safety, not the creator or purveyor of error. The best practice, coping mechanism, and success of everyday operations need to be captured, reinforced, and promoted. Take a positive view of the human; keep on doing what is done well, change what is not so good.
This view and associated activities should provide the ‘material’ of safety. Individual and team training should focus on using this material, how to think about situations, awareness, and decision making. None of this differs significantly from the ideals of CRM; it’s just an alternative view, changed priorities, and a focus on the positive and primary means of creating safety – people.
It would still be known as CRM, but hopefully more ‘alive’ and effective than some versions are today.
P.S. In order to improve safety statistics, many aspects in the outer arms of SHELL require improvement; until this occurs, any expectation that the central human will improve is misguided.