Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH APPROACH Phase I Research 2.1 Participants ECS along with our partners at the Faith Group conducted several in-person and telephonic interviews with participants representing both Tier One and Two transit cities who have experience responding to multi-agency emergencies as a representative of local or regional transit authorities. We conducted 7 in-person interviews at privately owned transit agencies located in Orlando, FL and Washington, D.C. Additionally, we conducted five interviews by telephone with public transit agencies located in Orange and Sacramento counties, CA, Portland, OR, Washington D.C., and Chicago, IL. We also contacted California State and Washington County, OR Emergency Management officials to discuss their interaction with transit agencies during large scale events. Participants included two current Senior Directors of Safety and Security for Transit Operations, three transit Planning Managers, a Transportation Supervisor, a Maintenance Supervisor, and Director of Emergency Management. 2.2 Procedure We conducted the Training Needs Analysis by interviewing incident management experts from the local and regional transit agencies focusing on the ability of public and private transportation authorities to work with local, state, and federal emergency response organizations when responding to crisis incidents. We used this information to identify concentration areas for transit and their associated command-level roles, primary transit agency functions, cognitive processes of transit agency command-level decision makers, and the prerequisite knowledge and supplemental training individuals should receive prior to engaging in a TERA exercise. We created interview guides using Cognitive and Behavioral Task Analysis methodologies with focus on the critical decisions and tasks present during emergencies. We interviewed subject-matter experts (SMEs) about specific multi-agency incidents in which they faced decision challenges and struggled to understand and/or resolve crises. Interviews also focused on identifying prerequisite training relevant to responding to emergencies. In addition to conducting interviews, we conducted a literature review of relevant emergency response doctrine such as the National Response Framework document (Feb. 2010), Incident Management Handbook (FEMA B-761), and training courses developed by FEMAâs Emergency Management Institute. 2.3 Analysis To begin analysis, we developed a list of transit areas and primary command-level transit emergency operations center roles revealed from the data (see Table 1 in Findings). We then compared the primary roles with existing ICS competencies. Next, we developed profiles for each command-level role in an IC fashion (see Appendix B) outlining the primary and alternate role titles, general duties, and general competencies required during each phase of an emergency incident; activation, operation, and demobilization phases. To examine the cognitive and behavioral tasks, we used spreadsheets to organize and categorize the data into each primary and secondary task categories with each row containing data from one interview. We then placed information that matched a category definition into the appropriate cell. Not only did this method provide real-world information and experiences that matched each role, it allowed us to gauge the amount of information in each category, by participant and by comment. We then expanded the categories with further information into decision requirements tables (DRTs). The DRT categories were task/decision, why difficult, cues/factors, strategies, and novice errors. Page 4
Phase II Research 2.4 Field Test Overview During Phase II, ECS along with our partners at the Faith Group developed a prototype of the target system and conducted three field tests with participants from transit agencies who have experience responding to multi- agency emergency disasters. The intent of field testing was to elicit both written and verbal feedback on the system usability, realism and accuracy of the instructional content, and training effectiveness. The three field tests, each lasting 4 hours, were conducted at the following locations: ⢠Field Test 1 â Lynx Transportation, Orlando, FL. The field test was facilitated by Mary Ann Pigora, Jeff Sestokas, Matt Baker, and John Whitsell of Engineering & Computer Simulations. The TCRP panel observers were Dr. Yuko Nakanishi, Winslow Powell, and Anthony Tisdale. There were four field testers that participated with an average of 9.875 years of experience in emergency management and response operations. ⢠Field Test 2 âTri-Met, Portland, OR. The field test was facilitated by Jeff Sestokas and Matt Baker of Engineering & Computer Simulations. The TCRP panel observer was Michael McGuire. There were four field testers that participated with an average of 4.6 years of experience in emergency management and response operations. ⢠Field Test 3 âRegional Transportation District (RTD), Denver, CO. The field test was facilitated by Jeff Sestokas and Matt Baker of Engineering & Computer Simulations and Heidi Benamen and Jeff Georgevich of Faith Group. The TCRP panel observers were Kevin Amberg and Allen Smith. There were four field testers that participated with an average of 18.75 years of experience in emergency management and response operations. Weeks prior to each field test, an information sheet (see Appendix D of the contractorâs final report) was provided to volunteer transit agencies that described test requirements including project background, purpose, schedule of activities, and support requirements including participant types and hardware and software specifications. Before conducting an exercise, facilitators arrived early at the site to perform hardware and software tests to ensure the TERA system was fully operational and to mitigate any potential risks and unforeseen needs. The day of the field test, introductions were given and then participants were instructed to run through a generic simulation tutorial to familiarize themselves with the interface functions and features before proceeding to the 2 hour full exercise. After the field test, a hot wash was conducted by facilitators asking participants questions related to the exercise and their experience using the system. Following the hot wash, participants completed evaluations which are summarized in the Findings section along with evaluation data reports shown in Appendix F of the contractorâs final report. Page 5
Phase III Research 2.5 Implementation and Deployment Phase III concentrated on implementation and deployment of the six release scenarios. Two of these scenarios were introduced to a national transit audience at the 2012 Transportation Hazards and Security Summit and Peer Exchange. TERA served as one of the primary training events during the exercise day on 22 August 2012. To guide the Security Summit exercise operation, the following goals were established: 1. Establish and support an exhibit booth to explain TERA and its capabilities to all summit attendees. 2. Facilitate individual and collaborative exercises to capture training requests. 3. Provide extensive detail on TERA so users are able to elaborate upon the training tool with their respective organization following the summit. 4. Elaborate on the future of TERA to summit attendees to guide future expectations. Two modifications were defined to expand TERA for training and exercise of additional Department of Transportation (DOT) personnel, and to support distribution and integration of TERA into local exercise plans. In Modification 1, we added a DOT role to two existing TERA scenarios and conducted one-on-one overview webinars, three on-site exercises, and a large scale exercise event at the 2012 Transportation Hazards and Security Summit and Peer Exchange. The objective for Modification 2 is to provide training support for state departments of transportation wishing to utilize TERA, and a Train-the-Trainer session at the Transportation Hazards and Security Summit and Peer Exchange being held in 2013. Task M2.1: Customize scenario for DOT. At the start of this modification, TERA contained two scenarios with a DOT Representative role. To ensure relevant content for state DOT exercises, one of these scenarios, the Flood, was expanded to exercise roles within the DOT emergency operations center. Task M2.2: Ten Onsite Exercises. ECS will conduct on-site facilitated exercises for ten state DOT organizations. ECS will provide one facilitator for 2 days of on-site support. The first day is setup and one-on-one train-the-trainer instruction. The second day is an on-site exercise, with up to ten participants. DOT personnel will practice the role of facilitator with ECS personnel in support. Task M2.3: Three TERA Webinars. ECS will hold a series of webinars for DOT personnel who are interested in utilizing TERA. Each webinar will cover TERA functionality and how to run an exercise, and will provide personnel with links to further references and tutorials. To allow interaction and questions from the participants, each webinar will be capped at twenty DOT attendees. Task M2.4: 2013 Transportation Hazards and Security Summit Train-the-Trainer Session. ECS conducted a full day Train-the-Trainer course at the Transportation Hazards and Security Summit and Peer Exchange on 1923 August in Irvine, CA. Page 6
