**4. Discussion**

The results from this study indicate a strong covariation between participation in Norwegian wildland-fire collaboration exercises and perceived level of learning, and a medium to small covariation between perceived learning and utility. Thus, our results support findings in past international studies, all of which indicate that participants' perceived effects of exercises are rather limited [3–7]. Initially, a significant majority of the sample population in this study (84.3%) agreed that the exercise focused on collaboration. This supports the assumption that it is considered rhetorically correct to be in support of collaboration-enhancing initiatives and exercises [3], hence contributing to maintaining the crisis managemen<sup>t</sup> assumption that collaboration is viewed as a core concern, as it helps managers and societies to effectively deal with the adverse consequences of a crisis [22]. The results indicate the

importance of giving clear instructions and sufficient forms of discussion during and after the exercise in order to gain learning. The study indicates joint evaluations, improvising and testing of new and alternative strategies across sectors as successful. An extensive crisis sometimes requires more focus on flexibility, e.g., synchronous collaboration compared to an everyday emergency, e.g., sequential and parallel collaboration. Exercises are opportunities to train horizontal and vertical working processes, either mechanistic or a more organic approach. Even non-collaborative decisions when a situation requires acts of demarcation or exclusion can be tested and evaluated [56]. The skill of choosing alternative strategies and approaches can be of special value during catastrophes and disasters [45].

Over half (53.3%) strongly agreed to whether they had performed well-known activities, while the rest mildly agreed or remained neutral. This suggests that the exercises contained elements of drilling, which have a focus on developing and repeating discipline-specific key procedures [4]. It should here be taken into consideration that putting out wildland-fires, together with flying planes and helicopters, requires specific skills and training and is thus difficult to entrust to others, something that may explain the finding that 85.9% agreed that personnel in need of exercise participated. This assumption is further supported by the fact that 97% of the participants belonged to a public organization, suggesting that these exercise participants were by and large specialists within their own fields.

A clear majority of participants (87.3%) agreed that they had learned new things. Over half agreed that they had learned about others' organizational aspects (74.6%) and communication patterns (71.8%). While these are high numbers, we argue for the need to see them in a context involving exercise participants that are highly trained, specialist professionals who already perform well-known activities. It may thus be assumed that the participants, as fire professionals, through everyday interaction and common training, already had a basic knowledge of each other's way of organizing. That under half (45.1%) agreed that they had learned new concepts and abbreviations suggests, however, that there were organizational differences and a slight lack of focus regarding cross-organizational communication development during the exercise. This, together with the high degree of familiar task performance, indicates that the exercise was dominated by sequential or parallel working patterns [19], where participants either perform their task in a defined order, similar to an assembly-line approach, or work side by side, while maintaining focus on an individual sector specific task. Even if all levels of collaboration are necessary to practice depending on the current situation, there is, according to past studies, a tendency to avoid synchronous collaboration during exercises. The reason can be a desire to avoid challenges associated with having to understand the collaborating organization's way of working or communicating [3], or as a means to reach individual professional goals [35]. However, in this study, it may also be a result of the practical need to perform tasks in a certain order, such as when to apply air vs. ground resources.

While most of the sample population (94.4%) initially found the exercise useful for real-life activities, the analysis of the other utility items suggests that there was some uncertainty related to who the exercise was for and which organizational level found it most useful. While 38% agreed that the exercise was useful for commanding officers, 42.3% agreed it was useful for ordinary operative staff. However, an interesting observation was that 29.6% and 42.3% chose to respond neutrally to the same questions. This suggests that the exercise lacked a clearly defined purpose, joint discussions, and the presentation of clear instructions. These assumptions are also supported by the fact that barely half (49.3%) agreed that sufficient forms of discussion were provided, and just above half (59.2%) perceived that their points of view were regarded. Overall, under half (45.1%) agreed that their experiences of the exercises would affect their daily work, while 33.8% remained neutral. From a learning point of view, these numbers sugges<sup>t</sup> a potential of improvement. The results can be explained by the discovery that exercise participants have a tendency to distinguish between exercise and real-life behavior [57].
