From the 'Bus Barn' this month arises two very important concerns regarding the use of bus simulator supplemental training: performance management and the role of the simulator instructor. During the past year, I had the pleasure of visiting and conducting several train the trainer sessions at transit agencies in North America and Canada. I was pleased to see the passion among the trainers, as this is a necessary ingredient.
Those who I worked with came to understand the critical relationship between themselves, their existing live bus training curriculum and their simulator training system. Each agency should have an idea of what they will be trying to accomplish at the onset of the powerful duo of live and simulator training. Using a simulator as a replacement for live training is short-sighted and will not yield the results you seek. Their relationship should be complementary in delivering basic skills and corrective actions.
With a lead instructor at the helm, he or she quarterbacks the training and ensures that a plan is in place to achieve the best possible results. The simulator must be an extension of the training bus, not a replacement. It can be the next step after a video has captured improper driving behavior. It's one thing observing a problem, but you now need to fix it! For me, the simulator provided a low-risk environment to focus on high-risk driving situations.
The transfer of knowledge between these two training types must not be compromised. This responsibility falls on the simulator staff. They must be selected only after great consideration. It begins with them. Any training tool in the hands of an unqualified instructor, who is lacking the proper skills, is not confident in their teaching ability and is not producing positive results is an indicator that the wrong person is on the training staff. The support of the chief training officer and his or her belief in simulation training is the cornerstone of a successful simulation program. Accountability and collision reduction is a must.
Performance management is not limited to the trainee. Instructors should be routinely evaluated by tracking the performance of each instructor's trainees that were advanced to passenger/customer service. Are instructors making the correct calls? Can they make the tough calls on deciding if the combination of simulator and live bus training served its purpose as justification to advance a trainee into passenger service? If not, they need to be reassigned away from this type of training. Simulation training is as effective as the training staff that uses it. I do not have the space here to explain all the ingredients that go into simulation training for surface transit, such as where to introduce it in your curriculum, the amount of simulator training sessions, what is the most effective amount of time one should be exposed to this type of training and how to deal with other aspects of simulator operations, such as scheduling, etc.
Questions arise over what the other trainees do while awaiting their drive time due to another trainee occupying the simulator? Are they engaged in any way with the occupier of the simulator? Are those watching from outside the simulator at an advantage or disadvantage? Should they, and how can they, be engaged in someone else's drive time? When instructors experience the occasional trainee that cannot get comfortable in a simulator environment, how should that be handled?
As you can see, a simulator is a program unto itself and deserves thoughtful planning of its use to derive the most benefit from it.
Hmmm... much to think about. Thoughts anyone? Does your simulator training program need a spark?
In case you missed it...
Read our METRO blog, "OCTA CEO: Looking ahead to the New Year," here.
Nowadays, there’s an app for everything. Very few of those apps can turn an everyday transit rider into a hero who summons help for a person in distress. A routine ride on your transit system can be suddenly disrupted if you witness an assault, a crime in progress or a medical emergency. That is why apps designed for public safety must take all imaginable scenarios into consideration.
As we all have experienced, chatter regarding topics other than performance-based basic skill development, such as current events, sports or one’s families, will develop onboard and can break the tension that candidates are experiencing in attempting to do their best. This tension breaker may do good for them, but this should occur during non-development drive time.
Thinking of the situation in terms of “who should yield” will lead operators to a less aggressive mindset. Once we get our operators to think in terms of “who should yield,” the logical follow up question to ask is “will they yield?” Once operators start looking at situations with a “yield” attitude, it becomes easier to recognize situations, which may result in preventable crashes.
Dr. Donald Kirkpatrick long ago defined four levels of evaluation to determine the effectiveness of any training program. It is common for the bulk of effort being put forth by any training department to focus on Level 1 and Level 2. This typically manifests as the time we spend planning for and executing the prescribed training activities that form our learning programs. Many organizations are now finding that they have the most potential for achieving performance improvements by focusing more energy and resources toward Level 3 activities, such as coaching.
When official-plated transit authority vehicles were scarce and basically reserved for those in upper management to go about their daily business to and from meetings, etc..., road control would be the responsibility of the “fixed-post foot dispatcher.” Not all of these positions have been eliminated, but I wonder if any readers remember the stability and sense of control that was present while the foot dispatcher was on post?