Skip to content
Client area
EN
Request a demo
QHSE · Quality, Hygiene, Safety and Environment · programme 03

Simulate crises

Test the team's coordination in the face of a fictional major incident.

Why this programme

A fictional but realistic incident is triggered on the screen. Teams receive partial information on their phones and must decide, coordinate and communicate under time pressure. The facilitator evolves the crisis according to the decisions made.

We can afford to lose money – even a lot of money. But we can't afford to lose reputation – even a shred of reputation.

Warren Buffettinvestor, chairman of Berkshire HathawayBiennial letter to Berkshire Hathaway managers (26 July 2010), reproduced in the 2010 annual report, 2010

What your teams experience

  1. The alert: assess the incident and trigger the right first actions.
  2. The crisis unit: assign roles and keep track of decisions.
  3. The communication: draft the message to stakeholders under pressure.
  4. Lessons learned: what worked, what was missing, projected on screen and discussed.

Each activity opens and closes with a projected cinematic sequence, personalised for your teams. The facilitator sets the pace: nothing moves forward without them.

What the company gains

A decision chain tested risk-free, and a debrief shared by every team.

$4.99 million

The global average cost of a data breach reached a record USD 4.99 million, up 12% over last year.

IBM and Ponemon InstituteCost of a Data Breach Report 2026, 2026

How we tailor it to you

Your wording, departments, figures and photos are built into the challenges and cinematic sequences, to the letter. The look follows your brand guidelines. Teams are formed on the spot or based on your organisation chart. The session report is delivered to you after the event.

The sources of this programme

Every game, measure and reminder in this programme builds on published research. The facilitator cites it in the debriefs, and you can check every reference.

  1. Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., & Wightman, D. C. (2006). Does crew resource management training work? An update, an extension, and some critical needs. Human Factors, 48(2), 392-412. 10.1518/001872006777724444
  2. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489-528. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x
  3. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty (2e éd.). Jossey-Bass (ouvrage).
  4. Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 857-871. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.857
  5. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1467-1478. 10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467
  6. Mitchell, D. J., Russo, J. E., & Pennington, N. (1989). Back to the future: Temporal perspective in the explanation of events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2(1), 25-38. 10.1002/bdm.3960020103
  7. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124. 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
  8. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall (ouvrage).
  9. Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628-652. 10.2307/2393339
  10. Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. (1998). Reframing crisis management. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 59-76. 10.2307/259099
  11. Stachowski, A. A., Kaplan, S. A., & Waller, M. J. (2009). The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1536-1543. 10.1037/a0016903
The foundations shared by all our programmes (22 references)

The mechanics of our sessions: team play, the debrief, the before-and-after measure, spaced reminders.

  1. Nair, A. (2006). Meta-analysis of the relationship between quality management practices and firm performance—implications for quality management theory development. Journal of Operations Management, 24(6), 948-975. 10.1016/j.jom.2005.11.005
  2. Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 405-435. 10.1016/S0272-6963(03)00004-4
  3. Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2002). Quality management re-visited: A reflective review and agenda for future research. Journal of Operations Management, 20(1), 91-109. 10.1016/S0272-6963(01)00088-2
  4. Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). Quality management and job quality: How the ISO 9001 standard for quality management systems affects employees and employers. Management Science, 56(6), 978-996. 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1159
  5. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. 10.2307/2666999
  6. Tucker, A. L., & Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Why hospitals don't learn from failures: Organizational and psychological dynamics that inhibit system change. California Management Review, 45(2), 55-72. 10.2307/41166165
  7. Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768-770. 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
  8. Dekker, S. (2007). Just Culture: Balancing Safety and Accountability. Ashgate (ouvrage).
  9. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 96-102. 10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.96
  10. Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1103-1127. 10.1037/a0016172
  11. Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 946-953. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946
  12. Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119-142. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x
  13. Reason, J., Parker, D., & Lawton, R. (1998). Organizational controls and safety: The varieties of rule-related behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71(4), 289-304. 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1998.tb00678.x
  14. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231-245. 10.1177/0018720812448394
  15. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
  16. Howard, G. S. (1980). Response-shift bias: A problem in evaluating interventions with pre/post self-reports. Evaluation Review, 4(1), 93-106. 10.1177/0193841X8000400105
  17. ISO 9001:2015. Quality management systems — Requirements. Organisation internationale de normalisation (norme). www.iso.org/standard/62085.html
  18. ISO 14001:2015. Environmental management systems — Requirements with guidance for use. Organisation internationale de normalisation (norme). www.iso.org/standard/60857.html
  19. ISO 45001:2018. Occupational health and safety management systems — Requirements with guidance for use. Organisation internationale de normalisation (norme). www.iso.org/standard/63787.html
  20. ISO 22000:2018. Food safety management systems — Requirements for any organization in the food chain. Organisation internationale de normalisation (norme). www.iso.org/standard/65464.html
  21. INNORPI, Institut national de la normalisation et de la propriété industrielle (Tunisie) : normalisation, certification NT, fiche de membre ISO (organisme). ; https://www.iso.org/member/2158.html www.innorpi.tn/
  22. TUNAC, Conseil national d'accréditation (Tunisie) : accréditation des organismes de certification (ISO/IEC 17021-1) et accords de reconnaissance mutuelle EA, ILAC, IAF (organisme). www.tunac.tn/

Before you book

What is digital team building?

A team building session in which teams play challenges on participants' phones while a big screen shows the running order, the scores and the cinematic sequences. A facilitator runs the room from start to finish. Everything happens in person.

Do we need to install an app?

No. Participants scan a QR code and play in their phone's browser. No account, no password, no installation. It works on iPhone and Android.

Is there a limit on the number of participants?

No. The platform adapts to your headcount, from a small team to the whole company, in one or several rooms.

Demo

See “Simulate crises” in action.

Thirty minutes on your premises. You play a challenge and see the report at the end.

Request a demo