**5. Discussion**

The OFFSOs considered the exercises to be focused on collaboration to a higher degree (88.1%) than the ONSOs (75.6%). In all items of collaboration, the OFFSOs scored a stronger result except on the item, 'if the actions were those they usually practiced'. Only 5.2% of the OFFSOs did not consider the actions to be those they usually practiced (ONSOs, 44.6%). A similar relation was found within the learning dimension. The majority replied they learnt new things, but the mean for all items within the learning dimension was higher for the OFFSOs (3.67) than for the ONSOs (3.03). The OFFSOs reported they learnt about communication patterns such as concepts and acronyms (60.3%) as well as prioritising (47.9%) to a higher degree than the ONSOs (22.4% and 17%). However, both OFFSOs and ONSOs showed equal results in the utility dimension. A few more participants in the ONSOs dimension perceived the exercises to be more useful during real life events than the OFFSOs (84.1% and 77.1%, respectively).

The multivariate regressions proved that collaboration had a higher degree of explanatory impact on learning for the ONSOs (R2 = 0.53) than the OFFSOs (R2 = 0.25). The impact of learning on the utility dimension was similar at sea and on dry land (R2 = 0.26). The still significant items contributing to learning was 'my point of view was regarded' (OFFSOs and ONSOs). Additionally, 'well-known activities', 'clear instructions' and 'opportunity to improvise' had impact on learning in the ONSOs context.

The results of the study boil down to the finding that communication, learning new things and different points of view are regarded as important to achieve learning and utility from inter-organisational exercises. This calls for communicative and interactive processes during exercises [43]. There are, however, obstacles to achieving such a process. ONSOs repeat well-known activities and are known to be organisationally differentiated. OFFSOs seem to be more integrated than ONSOs, but they are restricted by international regulations. Furthermore, inter-organisational exercises often seem to strictly follow a predetermined manuscript, not allowing much room for improvisation. Consequently, exercises tend to restrict the learning and to be repetitive, drill-like and intra-organisational because of the lack of timeouts, spontaneous assessments and inter-organisational discussions, allowing for reflections on alternative ways to handle tricky situations [24,25,53]. The bivariate regressions, however, display that well-known activities had some impact on learning, especially in the ONSOs context (R2 = 0.23 and OFFSO, R2 = 0.03). A potential explanation can be the use of instrumental learning objectives, leaving little opportunity for improvisation [54]. This means that it is important to exercise well-known and repetitive everyday scenarios, and that new strategies may be developed to improve emergency responses. The result suggests that none of these extremes, (the unknown versus the familiar) can be excluded from inter-organisational exercises [42].

Lessons can be learned from inter-organisational exercises, both on- and offshore if they make room for the participants to talk informally before and after the training. In a recent study, the labelled side effect of the collaborative exercise was highlighted as more important than intra-organisational practices [40]. The opportunity to get to know each other and discuss structures improved collaboration in real life emergencies. This means that even though the inter-organisational exercise per se seems to have poor results, it might lead to the creation of a collaborative culture among the participants. The ability to form and develop relationships might be more valuable than the planned formal learning.

The reason for the surprisingly high degree of learning from OFFSOs exercises, in terms of communication patterns, may be traced to the fact that crisis management in the maritime context is a high-tech sector. Due to several digital and analogous communication and positioning systems as well as international and national regulations, the complexity in training for an accident, or a disaster at sea will be very educational, even if the techniques and scenarios have been practised before. Moreover, if the size of the exercise is too big, it can hamper the possibility for learning, as di fferent actors may focus more on their individual goals and solve discipline-specific tasks rather than on cross-border collaboration and the sharing of resources [40].

Another reason for the stronger learning outcomes in the maritime context may be di fferent cultures at sea and on dry land. ONSOs practise manoeuvres unique to their intra-organisational context, e.g., weapons, advanced medical equipment, fire and rescue equipment from a strict professional and legal perspective. The OFFSOs qualifications, on the other hand, may primarily be dominated by seamanship together with professional practice. The seamanship is a common necessity for all collaborating OFFSOs, whereas the di fferent professions, to some extent, are limited within the physical boundaries of the ship itself. A second factor that is important for the evolvement of cultural bonds is a tradition of spontaneous communication between crews at sea. On dry land, we have bystanders, i.e., the public, and first responders, but in the maritime context all parties are expected to act as first responders, regardless of whether they are publicly financed rescue services. In densely populated areas on land, it is easier to hide behind the crowd during an emergency than it is at sea. Petrenj studied collaboration during accidents on land and highlighted that the main obstacles to collaboration was a lack of incentives and ambiguity in roles and expectations [55]. In the maritime context, actors have proven to be aware of a common and core value of understanding and agreement [56]. Such a value can o ffer synergies focused on the big picture rather than just prioritising specific tasks they are trained for [19]. In contrast to ONSOs, collaboration at sea seems to be part of the preparedness for everyday work and the ethos of seamanship.

## *5.1. Practical Implications*

This study shows collaboration and learning may be obtained from exercises based on already well-known activities. In this study, well-known activities were combined with opportunities as independent factors for learning. These results can inspire exercise planners to combine the unknown with familiar scenarios. The results may also encourage planners to use timeouts, seminars and repetitions of actions in order to elaborate highly e fficient types of inter-organisational collaboration. The use of scripts may hamper learning and utility. This can be addressed by increased the focus on improvisation, together with a new training methodology. Crossing organisational borders during exercises can contribute to a culture that stimulates collaboration, learning and utility in actual emergency work.