A controller development strategy can aim to cross train controllers to be able to work across up to four different control desks. The renumeration structure also rewards controllers for being deemed competent to operate additional desks, however does not appear to recognise controller expertise. This strategy has the potential benefits of controller skill redundancy, active succession planning and clear developmental pathways for controllers to aid retention. However, this strategy also contains the following human performance risks:

• Skill decay due to a controller not working in an area for 5 months (discussion concluded this is best case scenario if a controller worked across 4 desks and was rotated through each equally) or more;
• Shift in controller competency towards reduced expertise across a greater number of desks;
• The absence of opportunities to develop expert levels in single desk control to trouble shoot and problem solve the most novel and/or nuanced issues;
• Reduced understanding of changes made in areas (e.g. changes in bridges / bypasses functionality) which have not been communicated or understood by a controller returning to an area after time away;
• Experienced controllers time being utilised mentoring less experienced controllers who are moving between four desks regularly and, although deemed competent, have experienced natural skill decay;
• Negative transfer errors due to controllers applying ‘rules’ which are correct for one area of control but not applicable in another, this is accentuated by the variations in HMI design, functionality and process across different areas; and
• Animosity from experienced controllers who have expertise, due to many year’s in the HIVE, in a smaller number of desks potentially having to upskill across additional desks to maintain renumeration parody with newer controllers prioritising baseline skills across multiple desks over expertise in their first or second desk.

The training parameters for deeming a controller competent in a new desk included a combination of stages to demonstrate competency, verification by an experienced controller / trainer and parameters relating to time spent in the area of control. It is advised the following considerations are also considered to be included within this process:

• The 45 days unguided on the new desk, ideally, is completed continuously.
• Two shifts minimum are required when a controller starts working a new desk unguided – if only one shift is completed the 45 days begins again on the next shift.
• If after two shifts the controller, during the 45 days unguided, is required to control another desk this is limited to a single shift and the controller returned to the new desk to complete the 45 days uninterrupted.
• Once 45 days unguided is completed on a desk (as a norm and excluding extraordinary circumstances) the controller focusses on developing expertise on the new desk and maintaining expertise on any existing desks, for approximately 12 months, before being given the opportunity to begin the training process for a new desk.

Potentially limit the percentage of controllers in training to ensure experienced resources are available to control as well as train / mentor and to ensure specific desks are not tied up to completing the 45 hours unguided and therefore preventing existing controllers from rotating to maintain competency across multiple desks.