**1. Introduction**

Although there is always some probability of an emergency, it is impossible to know when and where they may occur [1]. In 2013, a major fire incident occurred in one of the Swedish underground mines—a specifically challenging environment to establish a rescue operation. A mineworker had to seal himself into the vehicle in which he was working to protect himself from the smoke. Two other mineworkers decided to rescue their missing colleague and entered the smoke but became disoriented and had to enter a rescue chamber [2].

During fires, self-escape and rescue operations in the complex smoke-filled underground mining environment are di fficult [3]. To reduce the risk of mortality and morbidity of severely injured mineworkers, they have to be rescued and receive medical care as quickly as possible [4]. However, to reduce the risk of becoming injured themselves, Swedish rescue service personnel in a recent study stated that they only perform life-saving rescue operations underground [5]. The rarity of major fire

emergencies in underground mineral and metalliferous mines makes the experience of performing rescue operations limited [3]. Rescue operations in the underground environment require the use of specific methods and tactics performed by experienced personnel with adequate equipment [6]. While other mining countries utilize specialized mine rescue teams, most mining companies in Sweden are assisted by the local rescue service during rescue operations into the mine [7]. The rescue service personnel are assisted by trained mining company guides during reconnaissance, rescue, and smoke-diving operations [8]. Therefore, the rescue operation relies on e ffective collaboration between participating organizations. Although the fire in 2013 resulted in a collaboration between the rescue service and mining companies in developing rescue operation plans and training together after the incident, the emergency medical service (EMS) was not included in the collaboration [5]. The EMS personnel are responsible for the care of the injured mineworkers, and not being included led them to feel insecure in their role as responders and becoming passive actors in the rescue operation [9]. Around one half of the Swedish EMS personnel with a mine in their catchment area considered themselves unprepared to respond to underground mine emergencies [10].

The rescue operation during the Swedish mine fire of 2013 was subsequently evaluated by the rescue service, and it was concluded that the rescue service had not been su fficiently prepared to perform a smoke-diving operation into the mine [2]. In order to improve the preparedness of the organizations, development of the rescue operation practice for major underground mine fires was required. A collaboration project with exercise organizers from the rescue service, EMS, mining companies, a training company, and academia was initiated with the overall objective to improve the current rescue operation practice and organizational preparedness by composing learning material for the participating organizations. The participating exercise organizers had to critically study their own organization and their role in the rescue operation in order to develop a new rescue operation practice, which was tested during full-scale exercises. It was deemed relevant to explore the iterative changes both within and between the organizations in a structured way. Thus, the present study had the aim to explore the learning process in the collaboration between the organizers in underground mine exercises. The study retrospectively analyzed the material from the collaboration meetings and full-scale exercises conducted within the collaboration project. The material was deductively analyzed and presented in accordance with the cycle of expansive learning in order to present learning activities following a process-oriented approach.

#### *1.1. Organizational Learning Through Exercises*

Emergency exercises are used as preparation and learning for future emergencies [1]. During emergency exercises, the existing response plans, procedures, and skills, as well as the effectiveness and dynamics of the responding organizations, are evaluated [11,12]. Nonetheless, the progress and outcomes of full-scale exercises may be di fficult to predict and control [13]. The managers of the emergency organizations, namely the Rescue Service Incident Commander, Ambulance Incident Commander, and Medical Incident Commander [14], need to know what needs to be done and how to e ffectively work together, thus they have to practice decision making and communication [15–17]. In order to manage the complex emergency situation, they have to be flexible and negotiate [11,13,16]. However, all of the involved emergency organizations have their own objectives and tasks [13], which might lead them to work independently and only sporadically brief each other of the current situation instead of working closely together and taking joint decisions [18]. Full-scale exercises can even be said to be inadequate tools for learning [19,20] and contribute to building intra-organizational skills rather than inter-organizational collaboration [21]. If the organizations lack knowledge about each other's roles, responsibilities, and tactics, this might negatively a ffect the e fficacy and outcome of the rescue operation [22,23]. Still, full-scale exercises may also contribute to organizational learning because the participants build informal relationships with each other and thus learn the other organizations' languages which can be useful for the inter-organizational collaboration during real emergencies [24].

In full-scale exercises, learning can encompass the individual, the group, and the organizational levels simultaneously [13], and both the participants and the exercise organizers engage in the learning process [16]. After an exercise, learning can be facilitated by allowing the participants to constructively reflect on their preparedness, the process, and the lessons learned [11,16]. However, there are few studies that report on continued learning which occurs over time through participation in various activities, e.g., exercises and meetings [25]. Full-scale exercises can even be stated to only reproduce existing knowledge due to using expected scenarios and the utilization of a stable way to make decisions [26]. Full-scale exercises are also too focused on standardization and individual learning within organizations [19]. Thus, the inclusion of more collaborative elements, without finished solutions into the full-scale exercises could contribute to organizational learning [19,27].

Organizational learning also includes learning among the exercise organizers, their learning process including figuring out possible solutions to the scenarios and challenges they create [16]. The exercise organizers also learn by observing the exercise process to be able to modify the scenario and refine the exercise managemen<sup>t</sup> structure and procedures [13,16].

#### *1.2. Theoretical Framework*

The complex nature of incidents in underground mines means none of the exercise organizers can develop exercise models alone. However, the learning process of jointly developing an exercise model can be assumed to be dynamic but challenging due to di fferent prioritizations, concepts, tools, and primary tasks. Therefore, the theory of expansive learning was identified as a relevant framework for the present study. The cycle of expansive learning has been applied in a wide range of contexts, including health care and education contexts [28]. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has applied the cycle of expansive learning to the learning of full-scale exercise organizers. The theory of expansive learning has been developed within the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) in which individuals are understood as part of a multi-voiced activity system with its own set of rules, division of labor, community, mediating artifacts, and objects [29]. This means that the exercise organizers have their own organizational culture with diverse ways of understanding potential challenges and solutions.

The focus of expansive learning is on changes in the object of activity, as exemplified by new practices and working methods [28]. Expansive learning occurs when the content being learned is not pre-existent but is created in collaboration among representatives from several organizations. Expansive learning can be described as a cyclical process, as presented in Figure 1, with the following phases: (1) questioning, (2) analysis, (3) modeling the new solution, (4) examining the new model, (5) implementing the new model, (6) reflection on the process, and (7) consolidating the new practice [29]. A collaborative e ffort is necessary to induce change, which starts when the representatives question the present practice of the activity systems and the common managemen<sup>t</sup> of the object [29]. The representatives analyze the current practice to find the root cause of the experienced contradiction and to find solutions to the challenges through modeling [29]. Instead of adopting new tools or practices as such, the process of implementation means a continuous re-creation and expansion of the activity [30], which over time can change organizational boundaries [31].

**Figure 1.** Cycle of expansive learning [29]. Reprinted by permission of the publisher Taylor & Francis Ltd., http://www.tandfonline.com.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**
