Tags

, , , , , , , ,

An Introduction to Exercises

Following the domestic terrorist attacks in 1993, 1995, and 2001 and the establishment of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002, officials at all levels of government and in all types of communities have worked to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from a variety of threats to public safety. Exercises play a crucial role in preparedness, providing opportunities for emergency responders and officials to practice and assess their collective capabilities.”

Key Concept:
Exercises should be planned in a cycle that increases in complexity. Each successive exercise should build on the scale and experience of the previous exercise.

Exercise coordination is done through the Multi-Year Training and Exercise Schedule. This schedule lays out a long-term schedule of planned and potential training dates and exercises.

Stakeholders:

•Players

•Victim role players

•Controllers

•Evaluators

•Observers

•Facilitators

The Multi-Year Training and Exercise Schedule is used to:

  • Avoid duplicating their efforts
  • “Real world event” training
  • Combine training
  • Optimize and combine funding
  • Training Course and Exercise
  • Real life event drills
  • Superfund Actions
  • Enforcement authorities
  • Citizen participation
  • Prevent “over” training and exercising

HSEEP Home 2013

Exercises play a vital role in national preparedness by enabling whole community stakeholders to test and validate plans and capabilities, and identify both capability gaps and areas for improvement. A well-designed exercise provides a low-risk environment to test capabilities, familiarize personnel with roles and responsibilities, and foster meaningful interaction and communication across organizations. The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) provides a set of guiding principles for exercise programs, as well as a common approach to planning and conducting individual exercises. This methodology applies to exercises in support of all national preparedness mission areas and ensures a consistent and interoperable approach to exercise design and development, conduct, evaluation, “real world event” drills. and improvement planning.

Policy and Guidance

HSEEP Toolkit

Training

https://hseep.dhs.gov/pages/1001_HSEEP10.aspx

detailed distribution list can be found under the “Record of Development.”

Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program

(HSEEP) Volume I was initially published in 2002 and provided an overview of the exercise design, development, conduct, evaluation, and improvement planning process as well as doctrine for U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) exercises.

Subsequent volumes (II–IV) provided more detailed descriptions of the planning and evaluation process as well as sample exercise materials.

Since the initial versions of the HSEEP volumes were published, the homeland security community has experienced numerous changes, including the building of a new and cohesive Federal agency and the release and adoption of the National Response Plan (NRP), National Incident Management System (NIMS), National Preparedness Goal, Universal Task List (UTL), and Target Capabilities List (TCL).

This 2007 release of the HSEEP volumes represents an exercise policy and program reflective of these changes.

The following changes have been made:

The volumes have been made more user-friendly and concise.

New policies have been incorporated (e.g., NIMS, NRP, National Preparedness Goal, UTL, TCL).

References to DHS-specific doctrinal or grant-related requirements, such as the need for terrorism-related scenarios.

Comments from the Federal Interagency, as well as several State and local “stakeholders, have been incorporated so the HSEEP Policy and Guidance is more applicable to all exercises, regardless of scope, scale, scenario, or sponsoring agency.”

The order of Volumes II and III has been reversed to follow the natural progression of exercise design, development, conduct, evaluation, and improvement planning.

It is important to note that the fundamentals of the exercise design, development, planning, evaluation, and improvement planning methodologies have not changed with these volume revisions.

Developing and implementing comprehensive exercise policies is a continually evolving process. As strategies, policies, and plans evolve, future revisions will be issued.

 

Purpose

The purpose of the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) is to provide common exercise policy and program guidance that constitutes a national standard for exercises. HSEEP includes consistent terminology that can be used by all exercise planners, regardless of the nature and composition of their sponsoring agency or organization. The volumes also provide tools to help exercise managers plan, conduct, and evaluate exercises to improve overall preparedness.

HSEEP reflects “lessons learned and best practices from existing exercise programs”and can be adapted to the full spectrum of hazardous scenarios and incidents (e.g., natural disasters, terrorism, technological disasters). The HSEEP reference volumes integrate language and concepts from the National Response Plan (NRP), the National Incident Management System (NIMS), the National Preparedness Goal, the Universal Task List (UTL), the Target Capabilities List (TCL), existing exercise programs, and prevention and response protocols from “all levels of government.” In accordance with NIMS, all efforts should be made to ensure consistent use of the terminology and processes described in HSEEP.

Organization

This document is the third of five HSEEP volumes, all of which are available at the HSEEP website (http://hseep.dhs.gov). The volumes are organized as follows:

HSEEP Volume I: HSEEP Overview and Exercise Program Management provides guidance for building and maintaining an “effective exercise program and summarizes the planning and evaluation process” described in further detail in Volumes II through V.

HSEEP Volume II: Exercise Planning and Conduct helps planners outline a standardized

foundation, design, development, and conduct process adaptable to any type of exercise.

HSEEP Volume III: Exercise Evaluation and Improvement Planning offers proven methodology for evaluating and documenting “exercises and implementing an Improvement Plan (IP).”

HSEEP Volume IV: Sample Exercise Documents and Formats provides sample exercise

materials referenced in HSEEP Volumes I, II, III, and V. Readers with Internet connectivity may click on exercise materials referenced in this volume to link to HSEEP Volume IV.

HSEEP Volume V: Prevention Exercises (Draft) contains guidance consistent with the HSEEP model to assist entities in “designing and evaluating exercises that validate pre-incident capabilities such as intelligence analysis and information sharing.”

This volume, HSEEP Volume III: Exercise Evaluation and Improvement Planning, which provides guidance for exercise evaluation and improvement planning, is organized as follows:

 (This page is intentionally blank.)

HSEEP Volume III

Chapter 1: Evaluation and Improvement

Planning Overview

Exercise evaluation maintains a fundamental link to improvement planning because it assesses an entity’s performance in an exercise and identifies strengths and areas for improvement. Following exercise conduct, improvement planning leverages the outputs of the evaluation process by developing Improvement Plans (IPs), which assign responsibility for correcting deficiencies or shortcomings observed during “a given exercise.” Through this process, evaluation identifies improvement opportunities, and improvement planning provides a disciplined process for implementing corrective actions.

Evaluation, Improvement Planning, and Capabilities-Based Planning

In accordance with Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8), the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) has adopted a capabilities-based planning approach, which is a process intended to build capabilities suitable for responding to a wide range of threats and hazards.

Capabilities-based planning emphasizes the need to analyze a diverse array of realistic scenarios and identify corresponding capabilities necessary for effective prevention, protection, response, and recovery efforts.

Capabilities-based planning is the basis for guidance such as the National Preparedness Goal, the Target Capabilities List (TCL), and the Universal Task List (UTL).

The TCL and UTL drive the application of capabilities-based planning by identifying 37 capabilities that will prepare the Nation for terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies.

Exercise evaluation and improvement planning play an important role in the capabilities-based planning process by assessing an entity’s capabilities (based on exercise objectives) and developing IPs that enhance those capabilities. Exercise Evaluation Guides (EEGs) provide standards for assessing objectives through the execution of tasks and activities linked to each target capability. Based on areas for improvement identified using the EEGs, After Action Reports /

Improvement Plans (AARs/IPs) provide concrete steps that an entity can take to remedy deficiencies or shortcomings observed during exercises. Exercises are also an opportunity to identify lessons learned and best practices that can be shared with other jurisdictions and organizations to help “build the Nation’s overall preparedness.”

Exercise Evaluation Methodology

The HSEEP evaluation methodology is an analytical process used to assess the demonstration of

capabilities during exercises. According to this methodology, exercise evaluation incorporates three distinct levels of analysis: task-level analysis, activity-level analysis, and capability-level analysis. Task-Level Analysis Tasks are specific, “discrete actions that individuals or groups must successfully perform or address during

Evaluation and Improvement Planning Overview”

HSEEP Volume III operations-based and discussion-based exercises. Task-level analysis assists representatives of exercising entities in analyzing shortcomings or strengths related to these individual actions. This analysis can also help entities target plans, equipment, and training resources to improve specific task performance.

Each task is accompanied by performance measures designed to assist an exercise evaluator in assessing relevant individual or group performance pertaining to the task. For example, the “WMD/HazMat Response and Decontamination” capability EEG contains the task “Implement mass decon [decontamination] operations,” which is accompanied by performance measure check boxes marked Fully, Partially, Not, and Not Applicable to designate the degree to which the task was demonstrated during the evaluation. Certain tasks may also be accompanied by a target timeframe for initiating these operations, which in the case of the example decontamination task, is “Less than 15 minutes after arrival.”

These performance measures are designed to prompt evaluators to capture multiple aspects of individual or group performance related to each specific task.

Activity-Level Analysis

Activities are groups of similar tasks that, when carried out according to plans and procedures, “allow an entity to demonstrate an associated capability from the TCL/UTL.”

For example, the task “Implement mass decon operations” is part of the activity “Decontamination and Clean Up/Recovery Operations.”

Other related decontamination tasks also fall under this same activity.

When conducting activity-level analysis, exercise evaluators seek to determine whether all “activities have been performed successfully and in accordance with plans, policies, procedures, and agreements.” Through this analysis, exercise evaluators gain valuable insight into broad thematic successes or challenges in performing related tasks. Awareness of such themes is key to improving the performance of individual tasks, and thus demonstrating the associated capability. Such analysis is also vital in assessing the effectiveness with which individuals worked together at the discipline or organizational level, and how well team members communicated across organizational boundaries during an exercise.

Capability-Level Analysis

Capabilities are combinations of elements (e.g., personnel, planning, organization and leadership, equipment and systems, training, exercises, assessments and corrective actions) that provide the means to achieve a “measurable outcome.”

Capability-level analysis involves assessing an entity’s ability to demonstrate its priority capabilities necessary to successfully prevent, protect against, respond to, or recover from the threat or hazard simulated in the exercise scenario. When conducting capability-level analysis, “exercise evaluators examine whether an entity’s performance of specific tasks and activities was sufficient to demonstrate the desired capability outcome.”

For example, an evaluator of the “WMD/HazMat Response and Decontamination” capability would evaluate how well exercise players identified and mitigated a HazMat release; adequately performed rescue, decontamination, and treatment of exposed victims; limited the impact of the release; and effectively protected responders and at-risk populations.

“Capability-level analysis is designed to assist managers and executives in developing operating plans and budgets, communicating with political officials, setting long-range training and planning goals, and developing interagency and/or inter-jurisdictional agreements.”

All capabilities link to the prevention, protection, response, or recovery HSEEP mission areas.

Levels of criteria for analysis

Exercise Evaluation Guides

EEGs assist exercise evaluators by providing them with consistent standards and guidelines for observation, data collection, analysis, and report writing. EEGs have been developed for capabilities in the TCL and are linked to a capability’s activities, tasks, and performance measures. If necessary, the “EEG template format also allows the exercise planning team to add tasks specific to the exercising entity that are not found in the TCL/UTL to the EEGs for evaluation.EEGs accomplish several goals. They streamline data collection; enable a thorough assessment of the exercising entity’s target capabilities and objectives; support development of the AAR/IP; and “provide a consistent and replicable process for assessing preparedness through exercises.” During the exercise planning stage, the EEGs assist the exercise planning team in developing objectives. They are also used to map exercise results to exercise objectives and elements of the TCL/UTL for further analysis and assessment. Figure 1-2 illustrates the scope of an EEG by showing the relationships between the capabilities, activities, tasks, and performance measures.”

EEG relationships

Evaluators use EEGs before and during exercise observation because they provide evaluators with the “activities, tasks, and performance measures associated with a target capability.” Information in the EEG is sequenced according to the typical flow of activities and tasks to be accomplished for each capability. The template is designed to allow evaluators to record the degree to which a prescribed task or performance measure was completed or met during the exercise.

However, within this section of the EEG, exercise evaluators do not rate the entity’s performance because the EEG is neither a grading tool nor a scorecard.

Rather, evaluators are asked to objectively record the full, partial, or non-completion of each task. The EEG is a reference for exercise evaluators, giving a sense of “when activities can be expected to occur and how those activities relate to capability completion.”

In addition to information on the activities, tasks, and performance measures associated with a target capability, the EEG includes Analysis Sheets, which are designed for use after the exercise is complete.

These sheets are broken down as follows:

An Observations Summary sheet allows exercise evaluators to record a general chronological narrative of exercise player actions based on the evaluator’s observations.

On this sheet, evaluators record when exercise events, specific actions deserving special recognition, particular challenges or concerns, and areas needing improvement occurred. The content recorded on this form will be used to develop the AAR/IP.

In the Evaluator Observations section, evaluators record and analyze at least three observed strengths and three observed areas for improvement demonstrated by the entity during the exercise. For each strength and area for improvement, evaluators should record specific observations regarding what occurred; a root cause analysis examining why events occurred; and, if necessary, specific recommendations for corrective action. The recommendations and observations that evaluators record in the Evaluator Observations section are used to develop the final observations and recommendations that are captured in the entity’s AAR/IP. From the AAR/IP’s observations and recommendations proposed corrective actions are generated at the After Action Conference.

Consistent EEGs facilitate the creation of effective AAR/IPs. By relating capabilities to activities, tasks, and performance measures, EEGs establish the foundation for IPs that can “strategically target personnel.”

Evaluation and Improvement Planning Overview

HSEEP Volume III planning, organization and leadership, equipment and systems, training and exercises, and assessments and corrective actions pertaining to identified shortcomings in priority capabilities.

After Action Report / Improvement Plan

While the EEGs are important observation tools and contribute to the improvement planning process—by collecting initial observations and recommendations for improvement—they are only a reference point from which to produce the main product of the evaluation and improvement planning process: the AAR/IP. An AAR captures “observations of an exercise and makes recommendations for post-exercise improvements; and an IP identifies specific corrective actions, assigns these actions to responsible parties, and establishes target dates for action completion.”

Because the AAR and the IP are developed through different processes and perform distinct functions, they are referred to separately at many points in this volume. However, in practice, the AAR and the IP should be printed and distributed jointly as a single AAR/IP following an exercise. Chapter 1: Evaluation and Improvement Planning Overview

HSEEP Volume III

Chapter 2: Exercise Evaluation, Data Collection,

and Analysis (Steps 1–4)

This chapter describes the first four steps in evaluation and improvement planning:

1.Plan and Organize the Evaluation

2.Observe the Exercise and Collect Data

3.Analyze Data

4.Develop the Draft After Action Report / Improvement Plan (AAR/IP)

Steps 5–8, which address how areas for improvement identified in an AAR/IP are transformed into concrete improvements, are discussed in Chapter 3: Improvement

Planning.

The first four steps in the evaluation and improvement planning process, which is critical for determining an entity’s capability strengths and areas for improvement, implementing improvements, and identifying issues that become the focus of future exercises. The process is intended to support a comprehensive exercise program with a focus on continual improvement.

Data collection and analysis steps The four steps discussed in this chapter span from the beginning of pre-exercise evaluation planning to the development of an AAR/IP shortly after an exercise. The steps address how exercise goals and Chapter 2: Exercise Evaluation, Data Collection, and Analysis (Steps 1–4)

HSEEP Volume III objectives inform a focused evaluation process, which yields an actionable AAR/IP relevant to the entity’s priorities.

Step 1: Plan and Organize the Evaluation

Thorough planning and organization “prior to an exercise is imperative to effective and successful exercise” evaluation. This process should include:

appointing a lead evaluator;

defining evaluation requirements based on “exercise objectives;”

•”recruiting, training, and assigning evaluators;”

finalizing an Evaluation Plan (EvalPlan); and

conducting a controller and evaluator (C/E) briefing. Through this process, an evaluation team can organize itself appropriately and develop a thorough plan to address how the exercise will be evaluated.

Appoint Lead Evaluator

Early in the “exercise planning process, the exercise planning team” leader should appoint a lead evaluator to oversee all facets of the evaluation process. The lead evaluator participates fully as a member of the exercise planning team, and should be a senior-level individual familiar with:

prevention, protection, response, and recovery issues and objectives associated with the exercise;

plans, policies, and procedures of the exercising entity;

Incident Command and decision-making processes of the exercising entity; and interagency and/or inter-jurisdictional coordination issues relevant to the exercise.

The lead evaluator must have the management skills needed to oversee a team of evaluators during an extended process, as well as the knowledge and analytical skills to undertake a thorough and accurate analysis of all capabilities being tested during an exercise.

Develop Evaluation Requirements

“Prior to assembling an evaluation team, the exercise planning team must define exercise evaluation requirements by considering exercise scope and objectives. These requirements include the tools, plans, and personnel needed to effectively observe the exercise, collect data, and analyze information.

Exercise Scope

Exercise scope consists of, but is not limited to, the days and hours of the exercise, the location/sites for exercise play, the number of exercise participants, and the type of exercise (i.e., discussion-based or operations-based). Defining the scope helps determine the number of evaluators needed and where evaluators should be placed for observation (e.g., facilities/sites, command/control centers, hospitals, on patrol).

Exercise Objectives

Exercise objectives reflect the capabilities an entity seeks to demonstrate, and therefore what activities and tasks will be observed. By identifying the exercise objectives and associated capabilities, activities, and tasks that are being evaluated, this step allows exercise planners to determine the subject-matter Chapter 2: Exercise Evaluation, Data Collection, and Analysis (Steps 1–4)

HSEEP Volume III expertise required of evaluators.

For discussion-based exercises, consideration of the exercise’s goals and objectives helps inform the development of a Situation Manual (SitMan), which provides the exercise facilitator with suggestions for how to steer exercise discussion to the capabilities being evaluated.

Exercise Evaluation Guides (EEGs) are used to evaluate operations-based exercises. By identifying the capabilities and objectives that will be validated during the exercise, the exercise planning team can determine which EEGs are needed for evaluating an exercise. For discussion-based exercises, the exercise planning team should use the performance measures, activities, and tasks for each capability’s EEG as questions to drive the exercise discussion.

The HSEEP EEGs can form the basis for creating customized discussion-based evaluation forms as well as SitMan content. (For more on discussion-based evaluation forms, see Step 2: Observe the Exercise and Collect Data; see also Appendix C).

Sample evaluation materials and templates are available within HSEEP Volume IV, including C/E

Handbooks, SitMans, AAR/IPs, EEGs, and evaluator training briefings. These documents provide additional tools to support the HSEEP exercise evaluation methodology.

By considering the capabilities to be evaluated early in the exercise and evaluation planning process, the exercise planning team can determine which forms and tools to use during the evaluation and ensure evaluators are trained and prepared.

Exercise Evaluation Team Organization and Structure

The exercise planning team and lead evaluator should determine the structure of the exercise evaluation team based on the scope of the exercise; the exercise objectives; and the associated capabilities, activities, and tasks that will be validated during the exercise.

Exercises that involve multiple jurisdictions and/or multiple playing locations should consider assigning jurisdiction leads or site leads, as illustrated by the example provided in

These individuals support the lead evaluator and manage the activities of other evaluators assigned to that location.

Example exercise evaluation team organization

Exercise Evaluation, Data Collection, and Analysis

HSEEP Volume III

Consideration should also be given to selecting individuals to support draft AAR development. For an exercise with a limited scope and objectives resulting in fewer capabilities, activities, and tasks, the lead evaluator may be the only person needed. However, for exercises with a large or complex scope and that will involve the demonstration of a large number of capabilities and activities, the lead evaluator may need assistance with analysis, editing, and compilation of the draft AAR and/or the final AAR/IP.

Define Evaluation Requirements

Evaluation team considerations allow the exercise planning team and the lead evaluator to make decisions about evaluation requirements for personnel, time commitments, evaluation tools, and subject-matter expertise. These decisions should be recorded as a preliminary template for a finalized EvalPlan.

The final step of the evaluation requirement identification process is determining the types of evaluation-planning documents required upon finalization of an EvalPlan. Discussion-based exercises may not require the same level of detail in planning documentation as operations-based exercises—a SitMan and discussion-based evaluation forms may constitute a sufficient EvalPlan for the capabilities being exercised. Conversely, because most operations-based exercises involve multiple evaluators who must work in a coordinated, collaborative fashion, such exercises often require a C/E Handbook to be distributed to all control and evaluation staff. Large-scale and otherwise complex exercises may require a dedicated EvalPlan that outlines evalutor roles and responsiblities and is distributed exclusively to evaluators.

Recruit, Assign, and Train Evaluators

Once evaluation requirements have been defined, the lead evaluator oversees recruiting, assigning, and training evaluators. The lead evaluator, a designated responsible individual that reports to the exercise planning team leader, may manage each of these efforts. The evaluation requirements already discussed play a critical role in determining how many evaluators must be recruited, what kind of subject-matter expertise they must possess, how they are assigned during an exercise, and what kind of training or instruction they must receive prior to the exercise.

Recruiting Evaluators Evaluators should have experience and subject-matter expertise in the functional area they are assigned to observe (e.g., command and control, fire, law enforcement, Emergency Medical Service [EMS]).”

The time commitment for “evaluating discussion-based exercises is generally no longer than 2 days, including observation and analysis. The time commitment for operations-based exercise evaluators is usually 3-to-5 days—equivalent to at least 1 day prior to the exercise (for pre-exercise training); the actual exercise day(s); and at least 1 full day, or more, after the exercise (for data analysis, AAR/IP development, etc.).”

When developing plans for recruiting qualified exercise evaluators, exercising entities should consider long-term strategies for developing and maintaining a cadre of trained evaluators who can regularly participate in exercise evaluation programs.

Chapter 2: Exercise Evaluation, Data Collection, and Analysis (Steps 1–4)

Assigning Evaluators

During operations-based exercises, evaluators should be assigned to different exercise play areas on the basis of their subject-matter expertise. For example, in an exercise using a chemical scenario, evaluators with hazardous materials (HazMat) expertise are strategically assigned to locations where they can observe decontamination and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). An operations-based exercise Master Scenario Events List (MSEL) provides a timeline and location for all expected exercise events. Reference to a MSEL can help the lead evaluator determine the times at which specific evaluators should be at certain locations. Evaluator assignments should be decided upon, recorded, and communicated to evaluators prior to exercise conduct.

The number of evaluators assigned to each exercise play location depends on the number of capabilities (activities and tasks) being evaluated.

For discussion-based exercises, the number of evaluators depends on the number of players, organization of the players and the discussion, and the exercise objectives.

Training Evaluators

Evaluator training must take place at least 1 day prior to the exercise and address all aspects of the exercise, including the exercise goals and objectives; the scenario; participants; and evaluator roles, responsibilities, and assignments. During or prior to training, evaluators should be provided with copies of the following materials to review before exercise play:

Exercise documents, such as the SitMan for discussion-based exercises or the Exercise Plan (ExPlan), C/E Handbook, and the MSEL for operations-based exercises

Evaluation materials, EEGs, and/or other evaluation tools; the exercise agenda and schedule; and evaluator assignments

Appropriate plans, policies, procedures, and agreements of the exercising entity

If there are specific plans, policies, procedures, or agreements that are the focus of an exercise, the lead evaluator may decide to brief evaluators on the content of those documents.

Evaluator training should also include guidance on observing the exercise discussion or operations, what to look for, what to record, and how to use the EEGs.

To promote effective observation, evaluators must be instructed to do the following:

Be at the designated position when players arrive

•”Get a good view of player actions (or player discussion) but avoid getting in the way

Focus on observing the activities and tasks in relevant EEGs to ensure exercise objectives are accomplished

Take legible, detailed notes, including times and sequence of events

Remain at the assigned post at key times

Avoidprompting players” or answering player questions

For operations-based exercises, evaluators should be trained according to best practices for observing exercises and recording data, described in Step 2: Observe the Exercise and Collect Data.. Evaluator training materials and other documents can be found in HSEEP Volume IV.

Finalize Evaluation Plan

Once exercise requirements have been defined and evaluation planning to meet those requirements has been completed, the lead evaluator finalizes the EvalPlan. As mentioned, most exercises will use a C/E Handbook to distribute this exercise information. In less complex discussion-based exercises, the finalized plan can be communicated orally among evaluators “prior to an exercise,” but for more complex exercises, the finalized EvalPlan should be documented and distributed to evaluators. Whether formally documented or not, EvalPlans should contain the following:

Exercise-specific information: Exercise scenario, schedule of events, and evaluation schedule

Evaluator team organization, assignments, and location:

A list of evaluator locations, a map of the exercise site(s), and an evaluation team organizational chart Chapter 2: Exercise Evaluation, Data Collection, and Analysis (Steps 1–4)

HSEEP Volume III

Evaluator instructions:

Step-by-step instructions for evaluators regarding what to do before they arrive (e.g., review exercise materials, wear appropriate clothing for assignment), as well as how to proceed upon arrival, during the exercise, and following its conclusion

Evaluation tools:Exercise-specific EEGs and analysis forms, the MSEL, blank paper or timeline forms

Conduct Controller and Evaluator Briefing

Before the exercise begins, the lead evaluator should meet with the controllers and/or evaluators to verify roles, responsibilities, and assignments and to provide any significant updates (changes to the scenario, new assignments, etc.). This briefing (typically referred to as the C/E briefing) is the time for evaluators to ask questions and to ensure complete understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Exercise planners will also give evaluators any updates on changes to plans or procedures. Evaluator questions should be addressed and information clarified so that evaluators can confidently and effectively perform their assignments. For operations-based exercises, the briefing often includes a tour of the exercise site so that evaluators are familiar with the venue and know where they should position themselves to observe exercise play.

Step 2: Observe the Exercise and Collect Data

Exercise observations and data collection (Step 2) can differ between discussion-based exercises and operations-based exercises. For this reason, the two exercise types are discussed separately in this section.

Common to both types of exercises is a focus on capabilities-based evaluation. This focus ensures that a discussion-based exercise prepares participants for subsequent operations-based exercises and that all activities support development of target capabilities.

Discussion-Based Exercises

Discussion-based exercises tend to focus on higher-level capability issues involving an entity’s plans, policies, and procedures. As such, many discussion-based exercises use breakout sessions and other exercise techniques different from those used in operations-based exercises. In the breakout session approach, a facilitator “frames the scenario” and poses discussion questions; players then break into sub-groups, based on discipline or jurisdiction, to discuss the questions. In such discussion-based exercises, there must be evaluators and/or note-takers present in each breakout group. It may be desirable to assign both an evaluator and a note-taker to each breakout group so that the evaluator can focus on addressing issues related to exercise objectives and the note-taker can focus on capturing general discussion issues.

As previously noted, discussion-based exercises require the creation of customized evaluation forms that may be derived from the operations-based EEGs and customized to reflect the plans, policies, and procedures being discussed in a given exercise. During the exercise, each evaluator uses the evaluation form to record data for critical topics and subjects that the lead evaluator has assigned him/her to assess.

Exercise objectives—and the associated capabilities, activities, and tasks—determine the type of evaluation form used.

Since these forms are based on the exercise objectives and EEGs, the content of these forms drives the facilitated discussion and also provide evaluators with guidelines and additional space for collecting relevant data while they observe exercise discussions. Evaluation forms should include questions linked to the capabilities, activities, and tasks within the EEGs to produce an effective evaluation that supports an overall capabilities-based exercise program.

Facilitators help evaluators collect useful data by keeping discussions focused on capabilities and activities relevant to the questions provided in discussion-based versions of the EEGs. Strategies for keeping discussion focused and constructive may be recorded in a SitMan or appendix to the SitMan,  Chapter 2: Exercise Evaluation, Data Collection, and Analysis (Steps 1–4)  

Other Operation HSEEP Regions

Here is the most recent scheduled, past and future events. By NO MEANS is this the ONLY list where HSEEP taking place.

Fiscal Year 2010

Event

Proposed Date

Sponsor/Location

Training Needs

Eastport Border Full-Scale Exercise (FSE)

October 2009

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP)/Idaho

ICS 300

Alaska Shield Tabletop Exercise (TTX)

October 2009

Alaska/Alaska

Interagency Biological Restoration Demonstration TTX

October 6–7, 2009

Washington, DHS Science and Technology Directorate/Defense Threat Reduction Agency

Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) Receiving, Staging, and Storage FSE

October 20–21, 2009

Washington State Department of Health/Washington

Vigilant Shield FSE

November 2009

U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM)/Washingt on, Alaska

TTX (Arctic Resolve)

2010 Olympics Prism Functional Exercise (FE)

November 4, 2009

Washington, Federal/Washington

WebEOC, Independent Study (IS) 701

NDMS (Federal Coordination Center [FCC])Workshop

December 2009

FCC/Washington

FCC 101 seminars; IS 1900 (NDMS overview); Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) 100, 200, and 300

Cold Weather FE

February 2010

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)/Alaska

IEMC

February 2010

Alaska/Alaska

Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield Anti-Terrorism Force Protection (ATFP)/Emergency Preparedness FSE

February/March 2010

U.S. Navy/Region

NDMS (FCC) TTX

March 2010

FCC/Washington

NDMS Workshop (December 2009)

Event

Proposed Date

Sponsor/Location

Training Needs

Alaska Shield TTX

April 2010

Alaska/Alaska

Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard FSE (linked to NDMS FSE and NDMS [FCC] FE–Arctic Spring)

April/May 2010

Alaska, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)/Alaska

NDMS FSE (linked to Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard FSE and NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring)

May 2010

NDMS, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)/TBD

NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring (linked to Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard FSE and NDMS FSE)

May 2010

FCC/Washington

Workshop/TTX prior

CSEPP FSE

May 2010

U.S. Army/Oregon, Washington

CSEPP seminar at State level

U.S. Department of Energy– Richland (USDOE-RL) FSE

June 2010

USDOE/Washington

USDOE seminar at State level

Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE

Summer 2010

U.S. Navy/Washington

Columbia Generating Station Practice Plume/Ingestion Drill (REP)

July 13–14, 2010

REP

REP seminar at State level

Canada U.S. (CanUS) North FE

August 2010

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)/Alaska

ICS 300, TTX prior

Columbia Generating Station Graded Exercise Plume/ Ingestion FSE (REP)

August 31– September 1, 2010

REP

IEMC

September 2010

Idaho/Idaho

G191, G775, G358, ICS 300 (private sector), Communications Leader, Applied Technology Council (ATC) courses, Rapid Visual Screening class, Preliminary Damage Assessment, Debris Management

CanUS Dixon Entrance FE

September 2010

USCG/Alaska

ICS 300, TTX prior

Continuity of Operations (COOP) FSE

September 2010

USCG/Alaska

Debt Collection Exercise Evaluation 2010

September 2010

U.S. Army/TBD

G348, Debt Collection Assistance Officer

Anthrax TTX

Summer 2010

DHS Office of Health Affairs/HHS

Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2014

Event

Proposed Date

Sponsor/Location

Training Needs

Vigilant Shield FSE

November 2010

U.S. Army/Alaska

Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE

February/March 2011

U.S. Navy/Region

NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring

May 2011

FCC/Washington

USDOE-RL FSE

June 2011

USDOE/Washington

USDOE seminar at State level

Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE

Summer 2011

U.S. Navy/Washington

Alaska Shield TTX

October 2011

Alaska/Alaska

Vigilant Shield FSE

November 2011

U.S. Army/Alaska

Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE

February/March 2011

U.S. Navy/Region

Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard

April 2011

Alaska, DoD/Alaska

TBD

Alaska Shield TTX

April 2011

Alaska/Alaska

NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring

May 2011

FCC/Washington

Workshop/TTX prior

USDOE-RL FSE

June 2011

USDOE/Washington

USDOE seminar at State level

Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE

Summer 2011

U.S. Navy/Washington

Columbia Generating Station Practice Plume Drill (REP)

July 10, 2011

REP

REP seminar at State level

Columbia Generating Station Graded Exercise Plume FSE (REP)

August 28, 2011

REP

REP seminar at State level

Event

Proposed Date

Sponsor/Location

Training Needs

Alaska Shield TTX

October 2011

Alaska/Alaska

Vigilant Shield FSE

November 2011

U.S. Army/Alaska

Puget Sound Regional Earthquake Response FE

TBD 2012

FEMA/Seattle

TBD, Resource Management, POD

Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE

February/March 2012

U.S. Navy/Region

Mt. Rainer Rumbles FE

March 2011

USCG Sector Seattle

Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard

April 2012

Alaska, DoD/Alaska

TBD

Alaska Shield TTX

April 2012

Alaska/Alaska

NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring

May 2012

FCC/Washington

Workshop/TTX prior

USDOE-RL FSE

June 2012

USDOE/Washington

USDOE seminar at State level

Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE

Summer 2012

U.S. Navy/Washington

Columbia Generating Station Practice Plume Drill (REP)

July 10, 2012

REP

REP seminar at State level

Columbia Generating Station Graded Exercise Plume FSE (REP)

August 28, 2012

REP

REP seminar at State level

Event

Proposed Date

Sponsor/Location

Training Needs

Vigilant Shield FSE

November 2012

U.S. Army/Alaska

TBD

Nuclear Weapon Accident Exercise

2013

U.S. Navy/Washington (TBD)

TBD

Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE

February/March 2013

U.S. Navy/Region

NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring

May 2013

FCC/Washington

Workshop/TTX prior

USDOE-RL FSE

June 2013

USDOE/Washington

USDOE seminar at State level

Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE

Summer 2013

U.S. Navy/Washington

Event

Proposed Date

Sponsor/Location

Training Needs

Vigilant Shield FSE

November 2013

U.S. Army/Alaska

TBD

Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE

February/March 2014

U.S. Navy/Region

Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard

April 2014

Alaska, DoD/Alaska

TBD

Alaska Shield TTX

April 2014

Alaska/Alaska

NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring

May 2014

FCC/Washington

Workshop/TTX prior

USDOE-RL FSE

June 2014

USDOE/Washington, Oregon

USDOE seminar at State level

Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE

Summer 2014

U.S. Navy/Washington

Columbia Generating Station Graded Exercise Ingestion FSE (REP)

August 26–27, 2014

REP

REP seminar at State level

Final_Region_X_Training_and_Exercise_Plan

H.R. 6566 FEMA To Mobilize For ‘Mass Fatality Planning’

H.R. 6566 FEMA To Mobilize For ‘Mass Fatality Planning’
(NLE)

National Level Exercise

Vigilant Shield FSE November 2012 U.S. Army
Nuclear Weapon Accident Exercise January 2013 U.S. Navy

H.R. 6566 FEMA To Mobilize For ‘Mass Fatality Planning’

*****

HSEEP Volume III

Participating Agencies

A list of the individual participating organizations or agencies, including Federal, State, tribal, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and local and international agencies, as applicable

Number of Participants

A list of the total number of each of the following exercise participants (as applicable, depending on the type of exercise and specific design needs):

•Players

•Victim role players

•Controllers

•Evaluators

•Observers

•Facilitators

 

2013 EMI Course Schedule 2nd Semester – Emergency

Date Generated: 4/11/2013 2:30:53 PM
Emergency Management Institute
Fiscal Year 2013 Schedule of Courses
2nd Semester

http://training.fema.gov/EMICourses/docs/schedules/2013%20EMI%20Course%20Schedule%202nd%20Semester.pdf\

Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP)
Exercise Design, Control, and Evaluation

C3 Pathways crafts and administers dynamic scenario-based emergency exercises that involve just one client or sometimes up to dozens of agencies. Each is established to be compliant with the requirements of the Homeland Security Emergency Exercise Evaluation Program (HSEEP). C3 delivers strong consultative support in creating scalable and robust exercises that challenge all types of responders to meet established objectives. Each exercise builds the skills of professional readiness as the C3 team coaches and mentors its participants to success.

Exercises include tabletop run-throughs, functional, and full-scale events. Each is designed to meet key local objectives and available budget parameters. C3 is especially known for its abilities to blend live action and computer gaming simulations for a rich, realistic, and collaborative preparedness experience.

Simulations where applied allow preparedness exercises to remain functionally realistic, yet with zero to minimal impacts to regular daily operations. This saves money and allows greater organizational participation. Another benefit is privacy, as simulations can allow exercises to take place at remote locations away from public or media view.

Whether it is a free-standing emergency drill or a multi-modal preparedness program developed over several years, C3 Pathways provides the kind of mentoring and support responders need. C3 readies the responder as an individual, and their agency as a team.

For more information on how C3 Pathways can help your organization stage an HSEEP exercise, please request a quick consultation.

Call us toll free (877) 340-4032 or email us at info@c3pathways.com to discuss your challenges. We can help!

 http://www.c3pathways.com/hseep.php?gclid=CMmltdG8zrYCFYZaMgody1MARA

National Level Exercise

National Level Exercise (NLE) 2012

National Level Exercise (NLE) 2012 is part of a series of congressionally mandated preparedness exercises designed to educate and prepare participants for potential catastrophic events.

The NLE 2012 process examines the nation’s ability to coordinate and implement prevention, preparedness, response and recovery plans and capabilities pertaining to a significant cyber event or a series of events. NLE 2012 also examines national response plans and procedures, including the National Response Framework (NRF), NRF Cyber Incident Annex, Interim National Cyber Incident Response Plan (NCIRP) and the International Strategy for Cyberspace.

Unique to NLE 2012 is an emphasis on the shared responsibility among all levels of government, the private sector and the international community to secure cyberspace and respond together to a significant cyber incident.

Major Exercises

NLE 2012 includes four exercises, including a capstone exercise. These exercises share common scenario elements, planning efforts and governance structure.

The four major exercises conducted are (March – June 2012):

Exercise #1 – Information Exchange: This discussion-based exercise brings together representatives from federal, state and private sector partners, the Cyber Unified Coordination Group and others to evaluate information sharing capabilities and to build a cyber Common Operating Picture.

Exercise #2 – Cyber Incident Management/Virtual Effects: This tabletop exercise focuses on evaluating the NCIRP. Participants test the coordination, authorities, responsibilities and operational capabilities among U.S. governmental entities, partner nations and the private sector in response to a significant cyber event.

Exercise #3 – NLE Capstone/Cyber Physical Effects: This functional exercise examines challenges related to managing a cyber event with physical consequences and national security implications. This includes addressing cyber and physical interdependencies and impacts while coordinating a Whole Community response.

Whole Community approach encompasses understanding and meeting the true needs of the entire affected community; engaging all aspects of the community (public, private and civic) in defining those needs and devising ways to meet them and strengthening the assets, institutions and social processes that work well to improve resilience and emergency management outcomes.

Exercise #4 – Continuity Exercise/Eagle Horizon: This operations-based exercise evaluates the continuity capability of federal departments and agencies. A component includes a nationwide exercise examining communications capability of the homeland security enterprise under conditions in which critical systems have been degraded or lost.

In addition to the these exercises, the NLE 2012 process includes senior level exercises, building-block events (i.e., seminars and training) and routine exercise planning meetings.

Participation in each exercise is determined individually but overall, NLE 2012 participation includes the Executive Office of the President, federal, state, local, tribal and territorial department and agency officials and emergency operations elements, nongovernmental and private sector organizations and international partners.

Learn More about Cybersecurity

  • Stop.Think.Connect – The Stop.Think.Connect Campaign is a national public awareness campaign aimed at increasing the understanding of cyber threats and empowering the American public to be safer and more secure online.
  • Cyber Tips – A few simple tips you can do to stay safe online.

Contact Information

NLE 2012 is sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency/National Exercise Division. Please submit any questions to the “Contact Us” page on the FEMA website.

Last Updated:
03/27/2013 – 11:58

http://www.fema.gov/national-level-exercise

simulation

The National Exercise Master Scenario Events List (NxMSEL) is an automated system for Master Scenario Event List (MSEL) management. NxMSEL supports exercise design and planning; exercise document development; and exercise management, suspense, and tasking. NxMSEL is designed to support geographically dispersed organizations and a wide variety of functional areas in a collaborative, data-sharing environment.

Security Changes to NxMSEL

If you are looking for answers to general questions about NxMSEL please visit our page of Frequently Asked Questions.

the National Exercise Program – Regional Response Team VIII

***

REAL WORLD EVENT DRILLS (Please note: not all exercises/drills are listed)

Site of the Boston Marathon Explosions

Two explosions occurred near the finish line at the Boston Marathon on Monday about four hours after the start of the race.
At least three people were killed, and more than 100 were wounded.

Boston Marathon Explosion Witnesses: Smoke, Trampling, ‘Like a War Zone’

http://abcnews.go.com/US/boston-marathon-explosion-witnesses-report-smoke-trampling-war/story?id=18961772#.UWzt-kqhzls

I researched what was planned for today’s Boston “terrorist attack,” here’s what I got –

Access denied

You must log into LLIS.gov to view this information. Enter in your username and password in the left menu bar. Not a user? Sign up for a LLIS.gov account today!
I did find this yesterday –

Date Generated: 4/11/2013 2:30:53 PM

Boston Emergency Management Institute

Fiscal Year 2013 Schedule of Courses

2nd Semester

 L945 State IEMC (NRF)

Boston, MA. April 2103 9 – 11

L958 NIMS ICS All-Hazards Operations Section Chief

ACCESS DENIED

****

Pennsylvania Pending – Operation HSEEP

Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency

County Emergency Plans

Each of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties is required, in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code or Title 35, Pa. C.S.A. Section 7503 (1), to prepare, maintain and keep current an emergency operations plan for the prevention and minimization of injury and damage caused by disaster, prompt and effective response to disaster and disaster emergency relief and recovery in consonance with the Commonwealth Emergency Operations Plan (CEOP).

Using the same format as the CEOP, county EOP are functional plans containing several hazard-specific annexes. These EOP define the organization, concept of operations and responsibilities of the departments and agencies of county governments and their municipalities in mitigation of, preparedness for, response to and recovery from disasters.

PEMA provides direction and assistance for plan format and content. New information or changes to current plans are distributed as amendments to plan. Counties are encouraged to tailor the information plan to meet their own unique requirements, e.g., additional appendices and county-specific data and procedures. PEMA Regions review the county plans to ensure two-year currency.

The Hazardous Material Emergency Planning And Response Act

The Hazardous Material Emergency Planning And Response Act, Pennsylvania Act 1990-165, was promulgated in December 1990 and amended in February 2001. It implements the planning and preparedness requirements of Federal SARA Title III.

Act 165 is NOT an unfunded mandate. It establishes a system of fees and grants to help support local efforts in compliance. There are provisions for establishment at the county level of both planning and per-chemical fees to be collected and utilized by the county for its hazmat programs. There is also a state-level program which collects fees from Tier II and TCR/TRI facilities and channels most of those funds back to the counties in the form of matching grants to supplement their hazmat programs.

NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE

In response to attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD–5) in February 2003. HSPD-5 called for a National Incident Management System (NIMS). NIMS provides the doctrine, concepts, principles, terminology, and organizational processes needed for effective, efficient, and collaborative incident management at all levels. NIMS can be organized along functional lines or jurisdictional lines. When organized functionally, responses are directed by subject matter experts. When organized jurisdictionally, NIMS is organized along local (municipality and county), state, regional, and federal jurisdictions. NIMS assumes that incidents are handled at the lowest jurisdictional level possible. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the establishment of NIMS in March 2004.

realistic training

Strategic Operations | Hyper Realistic Tactical Training

I had the pleasure of spending several hours with one of the lead “film directors” for the REALISTIC URBAN TRAINING CENTER.

We discussed how these “real world events” are literally “played out.”

Strategic Operations, Inc. (STOPS)  provides Hyper-Realistic™ training environments for military, law enforcement and other organizations, using state-of-the-art movie industry special effects, role players, proprietary techniques, training scenarios, facilities, mobile structures, sets, props, and equipment.

Experience

Since 2002 STOPS has provided pre-deployment training support to more than 450,000 military personnel (and still counting, every day) using our STOPS created Hyper-Realistic™ environments.

STOPS is a part of Stu Segall Productions, one of the largest independent TV / movie studios in the country.

Leader in Innovation

STOPS introduced “The Magic of Hollywood” to live military training by employing all the techniques of film and TV production integrated with military tactics, techniques, and procedures.

Players:

Crisis Actors – Trained Players and Actors Making It Real

Crisis Actors

Trained Players and Actors Making It Real

The need for advanced leadership training simulation

By  Nicholas V. Iuppa (Belmont, CA), Andrew S. Gordon (Marina Del Rey, CA)

Recent United States Army studies have indicated that the leadership requirements of the modern war fighting force involve several significant differences from historical experience. Some factors of particular importance to the new generation of military leaders include: (i) the broad variety of people-centered, crisis-based military missions, including counter-terrorism, peacekeeping, operations in urban terrain and the newly emphasized homeland defense, in addition to more conventional warfare; (ii) the command of and dependence on a number of complex weapon, communication and intelligence systems involving advanced technology and specialized tasks; (iii) increased robotic and automated elements present on the battlefield; (iv) distributed forces at all echelons, requiring matching forms of distributed command; and (v) increased emphasis on collaboration in planning and operations.

The demographics of the military leadership corps is changing in several ways. Among the positive features of this change is a high level of sophistication and experience in computer use, including computer communication gaming and data acquisition. This means that modern training simulations should be as motivating and as well-implemented as commercial gaming and information products in order to capture and hold the attention of new military trainees.

There are currently highly developed aircraft, tank and other ground vehicle virtual simulators that realistically present military terrain and the movement of the vehicles within the terrain. Such simulators are very effective at teaching basic operational skills. Networks of virtual simulators, including Society for Information Management (SIMNET), Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT) and the Center for Advanced Technology in Telecommunications (CATT) family, are also available to teach leader coordination of combined arms weapons systems during conventional and Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain (MOUT) warfare in highly lifelike settings. Likewise, constructive simulations such as Behaviorbased safety (BBS), Janus, Warfighters’ Simulation (WARSIM), WARSIM 2000 and others are very effective in focusing on the tactical aspects of leadership, i.e., representing movement of material, weapons and personnel particularly for higher echelon maneuvers.

But the same level of developmental effort has not been directed toward equally effective virtual and/or constructive simulators for training leadership and related cognitive skills in scenarios involving substantial human factor challenges. For example, driving a tank does not require the background knowledge, the collaboration or the complex political, diplomatic and psychological judgments that must be made in a difficult, people-centered crisis leadership situation. These judgments depend largely on the actual and estimated behavior of human participants, both friend and foe, in the crisis situation. Unfortunately, the complete modeling of complex human behavior is still beyond current technical capabilities.

As a result, these kinds of leadership skills have routinely been taught in the classroom through lectures and exercises featuring handouts and videotapes. It is possible for a good instructor to build the tension needed to approximate a leadership crisis, but sustaining the tension is difficult to accomplish. Showing the heartbreak of the crisis and the gut-wrenching decisions that must be made is not the strong suit of paper-and-pencil materials or “low budget, home-grown videos.”

Large classroom exercises such as “Army After Next” and “The Crisis Decision Exercise” at the National Defense University have attempted to give some sense of the leaders’ experience through week-long exercises that involve months of planning. These exercises are effective, but they cannot be distributed widely or easily recreated without significant effort. Also, they are not easy to update and modify, and they require a large contingent of designers and developers, as well as on-site operators, to run them after months of planning time.

Story-based simulations, on the other hand, increase participant attention and retention because story-based experiences are more involving and easier to remember. Participants are also able to build judgmental, cognitive and decision-making leadership skills because the simulations provide realistic context in which to model outstanding leadership behavior. Story-based simulations can teach innovation because they are able to challenge participants by providing “dramatic encounters with unexpected events and possibilities.” Also, story-based simulations overcome the limitations of current constructive and virtual simulations in modeling complex human behavior, which is an increasing aspect of today’s leadership challenges.

Crisis-based leadership training requires an awareness of human factors that has been especially difficult to teach through printed materials or the classroom. Giving complexity to an adversary’s personality or turning a political confrontation into a battle of wits and will (things that, in fact, represent much of today’s military decision making) are easier to discuss than to practice or simulate.

From a computational perspective, the term simulation is commonly used to refer to computational systems that compute subsequent states of a modeled environment by applying some transformational rules to the current model state. For example, weather simulations are computed in this manner–by first describing the current meteorological conditions and then applying knowledge about atmospheric conditions to make a prediction about what will happen in the future. Likewise, the U.S. military uses simulations to make predictions about the outcomes of battles and to give soldiers experience in simulations of potential future battles. The phrase `Constructive Simulations` has been used to describe simulations that compute subsequent states by applying transformational rules to the current state. Constructive simulations easily accommodate run-time interaction on the part of human participants. That is, at any moment in the simulation, a trainee can make a decision that changes the state of the modeled world and causes a change that will be propagated by transformational rules, and which may ultimately cause drastic changes in the final outcome of a simulated warfare environment.

The important disadvantage of the use of constructive simulations in military training is the surrender of pedagogical and dramatic control. While it may be desirable to use a simulation to provide pedagogically valuable experiences to trainees, there is little that an instructional designer can do to ensure that certain experiences will occur within the environment. As the trainees have free will and control over the course of the outcome of the simulation, it is impossible to ensure that a specific situation or set of situations will arise once the simulation has begun. The only direct control that instructional designers are given over the simulation is its starting state. Accordingly, there has been an increasing amount of interest in the notion of scenario development, where this has come to mean the specification of initial states for constructive simulations that are likely to lead to pedagogically valuable experiences for trainees.

While well-crafted initial states have a certain utility, particularly when training tactical skills for force-on-force warfare, other types of skill training suffer greatly due to the lack of pedagogical control. This is particularly true of military leadership skill training, where the lessons to be learned by trainees have less to do with timing and positioning of troops, and more to do with complex interrelationships among superior and subordinate officers and enlisted soldiers. In short, it is much easier to ensure that a tactical problem will arise given an initial simulation state than a leadership problem.

Given the autonomy of the actors’ characters in a storyline, the story composer is additionally faced with numerous critical problems: how can the composer prevent the actor from taking actions in the imagined world that will move the story in a completely unforeseen direction, or from taking actions that will derail the storyline entirely? How can the composer allow the actors to make critical decisions, devise creative plans, and explore different options without giving up the narrative control that is necessary to deliver a compelling experience? Also, in the case of interactive tutoring systems, how can the composer understand enough about the beliefs and abilities of the actors to create an experience that has some real educational value, i.e., that improves the quality of the decisions that they would make when faced with similar situations in the real world?

Therefore, what is needed is a method and apparatus for advanced leadership training simulation that allows the participants to make real-time critical decisions, devise creative plans and explore different options without relinquishing the composer’s narrative control and while allowing the composer to create an experience that improves the quality of leadership decision-making and delivers a compelling experience, preferably using story-driven simulation.

“Story-driven simulation” is a technology that expands on previous research efforts to create interactive experiences in virtual worlds where the outcomes are known and specified in advance by instructional designers (e.g., Cleave, 1997). This approach allows instructional designers to work with storyline writers to create a training experience that is dramatically engaging and includes a specific set of training experiences, but to do so in a manner that allows for a high degree of interactivity.

http://crisisactors.org/

****ok folks, here’s what’s coming down the “conspiracy” pipeline*****

I suggest you use a cautious eye on what’s “real” and what is merely sensationalism. You decide…….

Boston Bomb PSYOP HSEEP

Patriots’ Day in Boston, when Lexington and Concord are commemorated.

Boston Bomb Squad Running “Controlled Explosion” On Same Day As Marathon Blasts!

https://lisaleaks.com/2013/04/16/boston-bomb-psyop-operation-hseep/

Resources: