Encl. (1) to COMDTINST 3500.2
As suggested earlier, because exposure to endurance risk factors can vary by operational
scenario, an RFA should be conducted to develop a risk profile for each scenario. For
example, a cutter might conduct a risk profile for each department under different
operational scenarios (dockside, underway, boardings, or night ops), whereas a small-
boat facility might conduct a risk profile for B-0 vs. B-1 status, night operations, aviation
support, and so forth. The WG would use these separate risk profiles to identify the most
at-risk operations, to prioritize risk factors for control, and to develop control strategies
specific to the scenarios producing the most risk.
It is recommended that the WG share the risk profiles with the members of the work-unit
they represent, so that everyone has an opportunity to contribute to the assessment
process. Besides improving the accuracy of the assessments, participation builds
ownership in the CEM process and strengthens their commitment to the changes that may
occur to control the endurance risk.
Step 3 - Develop a CEM plan for controlling crew-endurance risk factors
At this point, the WG should have a good idea of the unit's exposure to crew endurance
risk. If the core risk factors are green and modulating factors values above 5, the unit has
low exposure to endurance risk, and no further action is required at this time. If the core
risk factors show yellow or red, or the modulating factors are above 5 in value, endurance
risk is present and the unit must explore options to control the risk.
To manage or control endurance risk, CEM uses a systems approach (CEM Model) that
explores control measures at four levels: (1) mission level, (2) personal level, (3)
organizational level, and (4) environmental level. Controls for each risk factor are
considered at each level of the model. This systems approach not only ensures that all
levels of an operational system are considered for controls, it also recognizes that levels
interact, and that a fix at one level of the system might affect other levels either in a
positive or a negative fashion. The CEM Model is depicted in Figure 3. At the mission
level, the focus is on the mission requirements or characteristics (e.g., missions at night)
that can produce endurance risk, and the question being asked is: can this operational
requirement be altered or eliminated without compromising the mission of the
organization? The intent is to identify potential operational aspects that are not absolute
requirements and if modified or eliminated would not compromise mission readiness or
effectiveness. At the personal level, the focus is on things that individual crewmembers
can do to ensure an optimal level of endurance (e.g., sleep behavior, exercise, diet, etc.).
The focus is to recognize physiological requirements and personal behaviors that can
influence endurance. At the organizational level, the focus is on those variables that are
under the control of the command staff, and that directly support (or detract from) the
ability of crewmembers to endure. These issues include such things as watch schedules,
patrol length, napping policy, and food services. At the environmental level, the focus is
on berthing and exercise facilities, human-machine interface issues, as well as such
environmental variables as exposure to extreme temperatures, ship motion, and noise.
The "corner stone" to the CEM process is education. Throughout the CEM process there
is a continuous exchange of information to the user population on what is fatigue and
endurance, what factors effect alertness and performance, what are the consequences of
4
Previous Page
