| Abstract |
Fire simulators play a significant role in contemporary fire management. Their importance is likely to grow as fire risk shifts in response to climate change, land use change and other drivers. Despite their widespread use, there are major gaps in our knowledge about how fire simulators are used and what is required to ensure they are fit-for-purpose.
To support the future development and use of fire simulators in Australia, a comprehensive engagement process with simulator users was undertaken. The focus was understanding users and their priorities and identifying current gaps and issues in simulator design and development. Similarities and differences among the needs and expectations of different simulator users were identified and investigated whether those similarities can inform benchmarks for the development and evaluation of future simulators. Results include:
- Simulator user needs are diverse, context dependent, evolving and resistant to simplification.
- Despite this complexity, two strong themes emerged regardless of individual differences:
- Social factors are critical i.e. addressing technical simulator criteria is necessary but insufficient.
- Trust in and support for simulators and their outputs depend upon a combination of robust research; consistent and ongoing engagement and communication between stakeholders; and proven reliability and success of the tool.
- Several criteria were identified as consistently relevant to ensuring fit-for-purpose fire simulators. These were ease of use, speed, configurability, versatility, robustness of modelling framework, effectiveness of software framework, handling of inputs, handling of outputs, scale, validation, support, trust, compatibility and value for money.
- There were some clear differences between Tactical, Strategic and Research uses of fire simulators. For example, Tactical users prioritised speed, ease of use and operational support, while Strategic and Research users valued configurability and a robust modelling framework, with Strategic users also valuing high quality outputs. Overall, however, use case was often a weak predictor of the relative importance of key criteria.
- Highly diverse fire regimes and risk profiles and significant differences in organisational and regional resources and capacity, make Jurisdiction and Geography important proxies for fire simulator user needs.
- There was some support for generalising user requirements and creating objective benchmarks to inform development. However, the complexity, diversity and overlap of requirements among users and use cases make this challenging. There is also a need to consider factors beyond user needs, including financing, resources, data, organisational structure, policy and culture and the needs of audiences and other groups.
- A set of principles may be a more flexible way to ensure simulators meet user needs and are fit-for-purpose. These principles could be used to guide simulator development and use, while being adapted to meet changing local, organisational and sectoral needs. Within Australia’s simulator ‘ecosystem’, some of these principles are already being implemented while others may require more work. Principles include:
- Drive simulator performance capability through improved fire behaviour modelling and improved quality and coverage of input data.
- Improve usability of fire simulator software and hardware, including platform stability, outputs that facilitate effective communication with audiences and ongoing support for users and partners.
- Adopt a comprehensive and transparent approach to validation and verification, applicable to simulators and their inputs and extending beyond accuracy to outcome-based evaluation.
- Maintain a cohesive approach to development and use through effective governance, capacity building and inclusive and ongoing consultation between users, audiences and developers.
|
