Building stronger ties: how constructive alignment boosts civil–military collaboration in crisis management exercises Open Access

The security landscape in Europe has markedly deteriorated in recent decades, particularly due to significant strategic shifts such as the invasion of Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 (Hedlund and Alvinius, 2024; Alvinius and Hedlund, 2024; Edström et al., 2018). In response to these escalating threats, Sweden re-evaluated its long-standing policy of neutrality and, along with Finland, applied for NATO membership in 2022. This strategic shift prompted the development of a new Total Defense strategy in Sweden (Swedish Government, 2020, 2021), which has been accompanied by an expanded role for the military within the domestic sphere, a trend also observed in other Western nations (Kalkman, 2019). This expansion sees the armed forces increasingly tasked with disaster response and the mitigation of national security threats (Clarke, 2013; Malešič, 2015), and the provision of critical support to civilian authorities, agencies and emergency services during crises, as seen most notably during the COVID-19 pandemic (Gibson-Fall, 2021; Kalkman, 2020). These developments underscore the evolving nature of military engagement in non-traditional roles, reflecting broader shifts in security and defense policies across Europe.

The expansion of military roles in Sweden also highlights the growing need for robust civil-military collaboration, particularly in managing complex crises that require coordinated responses from both military and civilian, authorities and agencies. The integration of military resources and expertise into national emergency management frameworks has become increasingly essential, not only in responding to traditional security threats, but also in addressing multifaceted challenges such as pandemics, natural disasters, and cyber threats. This evolution in the military’s domestic role represents a significant shift in the traditional boundaries of military engagement, necessitating new strategies and partnerships to effectively safeguard national security in an era of heightened uncertainty.

The growing need for civil-military cooperation in managing disasters and emergencies, both at national and international levels, is increasingly evident. However, numerous challenges persist, complicating effective collaboration between military and civilian entities. These obstacles include cultural differences, bureaucratic barriers, and inadequate communication, all of which can significantly impede seamless collaboration (Jin and Song, 2017; Kalkman and Groenewegen, 2019). Furthermore, the debate between centralized and decentralized crisis management models adds another layer of complexity, as each approach presents unique advantages and disadvantages (Bigley and Roberts, 2001; Meshkati and Khashe, 2015).

Despite these challenges, research has highlighted several key factors that can enhance civil-military collaboration. Personal familiarity among stakeholders, clearly defined roles, effective communication, and a shared commitment to collaboration are critical for success (Hedlund and Alvinius, 2024; Alvinius and Hedlund, 2024). Successful collaboration has been shown to significantly reduce societal vulnerability and improve the capacity to manage complex crises (Bodin and Nohrstedt, 2016). Studies also emphasize the importance of pre-existing networks and the development of strong interpersonal relationships through prior collaboration, which contribute to more effective emergency response and crisis management. Additionally, clear rules and legal frameworks are essential for ensuring that diverse, autonomous organizations can work together effectively during crises (Hedlund and Alvinius, 2024; Alvinius and Hedlund, 2024; Danielsson, 2016).

The article by Bollen and Kalkman (2022) underscores the importance of these factors, emphasizing that successful civil-military collaboration requires clear guidelines and a shared understanding of respective roles and responsibilities. They argue that the risk of militarization in crisis management, where military actors take over tasks traditionally handled by civilian authorities and agencies, can create tensions and challenge the principles of civilian control over the military. To advance civil-military collaboration in crisis management, it is crucial that these challenges are addressed, while leveraging the identified success factors. The authors recommend further research and policy development to create more flexible and context-specific guidelines for civil-military collaboration, in order to improve the ability of civilian and military actors to collaborate effectively in diverse types of emergencies and crises. Open dialogue between civilian and military leaders is essential to ensure that collaboration is both effective and democratically founded.

While collaborative exercises are widely recognized as crucial for developing crisis management capabilities (Rosenthal et al., 2001; Berlin and Carlström, 2015), they also present significant challenges, which must be carefully managed for exercises to achieve their full potential. These exercises are not only essential for honing the readiness, teamwork, and communication skills in military and civilian organizations, but they are also critical for emergency services, who play a frontline role in disaster response and crisis management.

Studies reveal varied results regarding the impact of these exercises on fostering collaboration, and highlight the complexities involved (Drennan and McConnell, 2007; Perry, 2004). One major challenge is the difficulty in achieving seamless collaboration across different organizations, because participants often remain focused on their own tasks and responsibilities and this can lead to siloed efforts rather than integrated action (Berlin and Carlström, 2011; van Wart and Kapucu, 2011). Differences in organizational cultures and behaviors further complicate collaboration, because emergency services, the military, and civilian authorities may have divergent operational protocols and priorities (Martinussen, 2013).

Moreover, the effectiveness of these exercises can be hindered by an overreliance on standardization, which may stifle the adaptability needed in real-world crisis scenarios. Insufficient attention to variation, coupled with complex or overambitious exercise designs, can also detract from their practical value (Borell and Eriksson, 2013; Kristiansen et al., 2017).

Furthermore, the alignment between intended learning outcomes and the actual conduct of exercises is often marginal, leading to ineffective pedagogical setups that fail to significantly improve collaboration capabilities (Hedlund and Alvinius, 2024).

Despite these challenges, collaborative exercises hold significant potential for improving crisis management across all the parties involved (Andersson et al., 2014). When well-executed, these exercises enhance overall readiness, foster better teamwork, and improve communication channels, all of which are critical in the high-pressure environments of disaster response (Perry, 2004). The key to effective exercises lies in meticulous planning, the creation of realistic and relevant scenarios, and the implementation of structured evaluations. These evaluations should include reflection sessions and facilitated debriefings, allowing participants to learn from their mistakes and adjust for future operations (Sinclair et al., 2012).

Clear objectives, well-defined participant roles, and synchronization among organizations are also critical to the success of these exercises (Petrenj et al., 2012). This means ensuring that all agencies involved in an exercise understand their specific roles within the broader response effort and how they interconnect with other organizations. The study by the Hedlund et al. (2015), Hedlund (2016) and Hedlund and Alvinius (2024) emphasizes the importance of Context Support in exercise planning. The requirements for appropriate exercise duration, participant characteristics, organizational familiarity, and access to expert assistance are crucial in overcoming obstacles and maximizing the benefits of these collaborative efforts.

By addressing these challenges and focusing on the success factors identified, collaborative exercises can significantly enhance the readiness and effectiveness of civil-military collaboration and other organizations involved in crisis management and Total Defense. This will ultimately lead to better outcomes in real-world disaster scenarios.

Both the Swedish Armed Forces and the MSB, along with responsible government ministers, emphasize exercises as particularly important for building the capacity for effective civil-military collaboration. Unlike actual crises, which are unpredictable, ethically complex, and difficult to document, exercises allow researchers to systematically observe coordination, communication, and decision-making under simulated yet realistic conditions (Pek et al., 2023). Scenario-based exercises also enable structured reflection, feedback, and shared understanding, which are rarely possible during real-time emergencies (Haseley, 2014).

Moreover, in the wake of Sweden’s accession to NATO, exercises aimed at strengthening civil-military collaboration are no longer solely a national concern. They may increasingly need to align with, or draw from, practices developed by NATO’s Civil-Military Cooperation Centre of Excellence (NATO CIMIC COE, n.d.). Overall, exercises offer a repeatable and ethically sound method for developing and evaluating crisis response capabilities advantages that are not achievable through the study of real-world events.

The purpose of this study is to explore and evaluate the effectiveness of a developed model of Constructive Alignment (CA) in analyzing civil-military collaboration exercises. This study is especially relevant given increasingly complex challenges, which demand enhanced collaboration between civilian and military organizations.

Previous research has shown that successful collaboration is crucial for effective crisis management, yet achieving seamless integration between different organizations remains challenging. The study addresses a gap in existing literature by examining whether the CA model, enhanced with the Context Support variable from Edmondson’s team learning model (1999), can provide a robust framework for the analysis and improvement of civil-military collaboration exercises.

The study will focus on the following research questions:

1. Can the enhanced model of Constructive Alignment be used to effectively analyze civil-military collaboration exercises?

2. Is there constructive alignment among the variables in the developed CA model?

3. Do the exercises lead to an increased capability for civil-military collaboration?

Given this critical role of civil-military collaboration in national security and crisis management, understanding the effectiveness of exercises through a structured theoretical framework is essential. This study will contribute to the understanding of how to design, implement, and evaluate exercises that enhance the collaboration capabilities of civilian and military organizations.

This study employs an enhanced model of CA as its theoretical framework, building on the original CA model’s three components: Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs), Teaching and Learning Activities (TLAs), and Task Assessment (TA) (Biggs, 2012, 2014; Biggs and Tang, 2011).

The choice of CA is justified by its strong alignment with outcome-based education and its applicability in complex, multidisciplinary training environments such as crisis management. Furthermore, Biggs (2014) emphasizes that when CA is implemented with adequate institutional support, it can significantly enhance teaching quality by ensuring coherence between intended learning outcomes and assessment methods. CA contributes to meaningful quality improvement by focusing on what students are expected to learn and how that learning is supported and evaluated.

The model has been further developed by integrating the concept of Context Support from Edmondson’s team learning model (1999), which has been shown to significantly influence the planning and execution of exercises (Hedlund and Alvinius, 2024). Context Support is vital for the success of such exercises, encompassing factors such as exercise duration, participants’ characteristics, organizational affiliations, and their prior experience. It also includes access to necessary resources, such as standard operational procedures and expert assistance, and the degree of familiarity and group development among participants (Wheelan, 2009).

The enhanced CA model seeks to create a cohesive pedagogical activity where each component, ILOs, TLAs, and TA is aligned to optimize learning outcomes.

This alignment begins with refining ILOs into specific, measurable goals that directly relate to the overarching objectives of the exercise, particularly in the context of civil-military collaboration.

Based on these ILOs, Context Support is then identified and operationalized. This includes configuring participant groups based on expertise and experience, adjusting exercise duration, integrating standard operating procedures, and ensuring access to expert facilitation. Group dynamics, organizational culture, and prior familiarity among participants, elements emphasized by Wheelan (2009), are also factored into the support structure.

TLAs are subsequently designed to align with both the ILOs and contextual conditions, employing realistic scenarios. TLAs are then designed to facilitate the acquisition of the necessary skills through various instructional methods, while TAs are developed to effectively measure achievement of the ILOs, providing constructive feedback to participants. This alignment is critical to enhancing the effectiveness of the exercises, and to achieving the desired learning outcomes.

CA has been criticized for the strong emphasis on measurable learning outcomes that may also lead to instrumental learning rather than fostering deep understanding (Hussey and Smith, 2002). Additionally, CA can limit flexibility, as its reliance on predefined goals and activities may restrict the instructor’s ability to adapt to emerging needs (Carless, 2007). The model also tends to underestimate informal and spontaneous learning, which is particularly relevant in complex and dynamic environments (Boud and Falchikov, 2006). Despite these limitations, CA remains valuable in civil-military exercises, especially when the model is adapted to account for contextual factors in inter-organizational settings.

This case study focuses on a five-day civil-military exercise conducted at a Swedish air base in June 2024, involving 140 participants representing approximately 40 organizations operating at both regional and local levels. This exercise was well suited to the purpose of the study, as it introduced a completely new concept for this type of training. It was structured in three distinct phases based on organizational level: the strategic level trained on day one, then handed over to the regional level on day two and three, which in turn passed responsibility to the local level on day four and five.

The exercise was designed as a tabletop collaboration, centering on scenarios in which key organizations were grouped together to discuss, analyze, and coordinate their roles, responsibilities, and actions in response to various crisis scenarios. The primary objective of these exercises was to foster inter-organizational collaboration, and enhance the ability to solve complex problems, evaluate policies, and make critical collective decisions. Moreover, these exercises provided an opportunity for organizations to demonstrate their capacity to prioritize, coordinate, and support each other in resource-intensive situations, thereby underscoring the importance of cross-boundary collaboration (Berlin and Carlström, 2008, 2013).

At the strategic level, participants included governors from the southern and southeastern civil areas, directors general or equivalents from all sectors, the Military Region Commander and Deputy Commander, and the heads of the Police Region, Healthcare Region, Transport Administration, and the MSB, amounting to a total of 18 individuals. The operational level comprised 40 participants from the two civil areas involved in the exercise, including all county emergency defense directors, emergency readiness managers from police regions, and sector managers responsible for finance, economy, food supply and water supply, infrastructure and transportation, and emergency services and civil defense. At the local and municipal levels, the 80 participants primarily consisted of emergency readiness officers and fire service personnel. Most participants possessed relevant experience and knowledge pertinent to the tasks they were expected to address during the exercise.

However, it is important to note that the tabletop format, as opposed to full-scale exercise, emphasizes discussion, planning, and coordination in a low-stress, simulated environment. This enables detailed observation of decision-making and inter-organizational dynamics without the logistical complexities of physical implementation. However, the absence of real-time operational tasks limits the assessment of practical performance, stress response, and field-level coordination. While the format supports analysis of learning and collaboration, it provides only limited insight into logistical execution and communication under operational pressure.

This study applied an enhanced CA model as the theoretical framework for data analysis. The data collection was conducted through participant observation, a widely recognized method within ethnographic research (Fetterman, 2010). This method entails researchers actively engaging in the activities and social interactions of the participants while systematically documenting events in real-time (Cohen et al., 2011). Throughout the exercises, participant observation was performed by the first author across various groups, ensuring a comprehensive overview of their activities. Detailed field notes were meticulously recorded each day, guided by an observation checklist rooted in the CA model (Biggs, 2012, 2014; Biggs and Tang, 2011), with the added consideration of Context Support (Edmondson, 1999). In addition, the structured observation focused not only on what decisions were made, but also on how they were made, including the reasoning behind them, the interaction between participants, and the influence of contextual factors such as organizational culture and prior working relationships. The analysis prioritized moments in which participants referenced learning goals, made decisions, interacted with legal frameworks, or commented on the pedagogical structure. Additional attention was given to how decisions were made, including the reasoning behind them and the influence of contextual factors such as prior collaboration, organizational roles, and familiarity.

Following the exercises, the field notes were transcribed to ensure that all observations were thoroughly documented, and that the intricate details of participants’ interactions and activities were captured. The transcribed data was subsequently analyzed based on the variables outlined in the enhanced CA model. This structured approach enabled a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the data, facilitating the identification of potential areas for improvement in future exercises.

No formal task assessment was conducted. However, participants’ reflections—collected during group work and in the final evaluation—were treated as indicators of perceived learning, engagement, and practical relevance. Observed behaviors and selected quotations were synthesized into thematic summaries, which provided the empirical basis for analyzing the quality of CA.

To ensure adherence to ethical standards, the study was submitted to the Ethics Review Authority for approval. According to Decision Ref. No. 2022-02944-01, the project was classified as not involving personal data, thereby exempting it from a detailed review. Key ethical considerations included informing participants about the study’s purpose and their rights, and ensuring the confidentiality and anonymity of their identities and organizational affiliations. Participants were assured that their personal information would remain confidential in any published findings or reports.

It should be noted that this study is part of a larger research project funded by the Swedish Armed Forces. Two other studies have been published, based on document analysis, interviews, and observations from collaboration exercises (Hedlund and Alvinius, 2024; Alvinius and Hedlund, 2024). This study is a continuation of previous research within the project, and no overlapping data has been used; instead, new data has been collected continuously.

The single-country, single-case design centered on a Swedish civil-military exercise limits the generalizability of the findings to other national contexts, military doctrines, and institutional cultures. Civil-military collaboration is deeply influenced by each country’s political system, organizational structures, and crisis management traditions, all of which may differ significantly from the Swedish setting.

In this exercise, there were two specific and well-defined ILOs. The scenario involved a high-readiness situation in which a foreign power invaded southeastern Sweden. The first ILO was to plan the evacuation of people from the affected geographical area, while the second ILO focused on the planning for accommodation of these evacuees in nearby regions. The specificity and clarity of these ILOs made the exercise less complex to plan and execute when compared to exercises with multiple or less concrete objectives. The clear focus of the scenario allowed the planners to adapt appropriate contextual support for the exercise.

By situating the scenario in southern and southeastern Sweden, the selection of participants responsible for readiness at the strategic, operational, and local levels, within this geographical area, was straightforward. The exercise spanned five days, from Monday to Friday and was structured as a three-step process: strategic level participants on Monday, operational level participants on Tuesday and Wednesday, and local and municipal level participants on Thursday and Friday. This structure provided several advantages, such as ensuring that all participants shared the same ILOs, with varying implications depending on their organizational roles. This approach also ensured that participants had a thorough understanding of the geographical area where evacuation and accommodation would take place.

In this context, a novel approach was implemented whereby group work was led by managers from the next higher organizational level, reflecting the structure typically employed during actual operations. At the strategic level, civil area managers directed group activities, while at the operational level, leadership was provided by the civil area administrative managers. At the local level, groups were organized by county, with the readiness coordinators from each County Administrative Board naturally assuming leadership roles, given their established coordination responsibilities. Furthermore, participants at different levels were generally familiar with one another due to previous interaction and collaboration on crisis management issues. This familiarity reduced the need for extensive group development, which is often necessary when participants are meeting for the first time. Even those without direct experience of war had relevant knowledge and skills suited to their organizational roles. An additional significant Context Support measure was the inclusion of two lawyers with expertise in international law and civil and military readiness. These legal experts were present throughout the exercise to clarify the laws and regulations applicable to various situations.

At the strategic level, participants included governors and civil area managers from the southern and southeastern regions, directors general or equivalents from various sectors, and the Military Region Commander and Deputy Commander – totaling 18 individuals. The group leaders were the civil area managers, and participants were divided according to their geographic responsibilities. On Monday, the pedagogical setup began with the course leaders presenting the global security developments in China, the USA, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, followed by specific events in Sweden, such as hybrid actions like overload attacks on authorities and sabotage, and intelligence reports suggesting a Russian attack on southern Sweden.

The Commander of the Military Region South (CMRS) called a meeting where he reviewed the situation, describing potential Russian attack scenarios. The exercise then progressed with strategic level decisions about evacuation and accommodation in response to a simulated Russian attack, leading to a state of high alert and general mobilization under NATO’s Article 5.

At the operational level, group leaders were administrative managers responsible for each civil area on a geographic basis. The pedagogical approach was similar to that of the strategic level, with a detailed presentation of global security developments and the ongoing invasion of southeastern and southern Sweden. The 40 participants at this level included county emergency defense directors, emergency readiness managers from police regions, and sector managers responsible for key areas such as finance, infrastructure, and rescue services. Their task was to refine and concretize the strategic level directives into more developed operational directives to guide the local level.

Before participants began work on their tasks, the legal team delivered a comprehensive presentation on applicable legislation across different states of readiness, from peacetime to the highest state of readiness. This included an overview of the three Swedish principles of readiness: the principle of responsibility, the principle of parity, and the principle of proximity. The legal team also reviewed regulations concerning heightened readiness, the wartime organization, and specific laws relevant to evacuation and accommodation. This presentation, which also covered international law and the laws of war, was particularly well-received by participants, and represented a new and valuable element in this type of exercise in Sweden.

The course leader introduced and trained participants in a decision-making method. The goal was for participants to develop a level-specific directive that clearly indicated a course of action appropriate for their organizational level. The process included a three-step assessment: (1) Developing a clearly defined objective through an understanding of the situation and clarification of timeframes, (2) Identifying input values and success factors, and (3) Developing and documenting a directive decision. This structured approach to decision-making was a novel addition to such exercises, given the Swedish principles of readiness, which typically prevent one actor from making decisions for another during collaboration. While the method was generally accepted, some participants expressed concerns about autonomy, and the independence of municipalities.

One participant from a county administrative board remarked, “We can’t decide what others should do as the municipalities are independent. The Common Foundations form the basis for directive decisions and nomenclature.” Another participant added, “We all have our own terms and ways of dealing with issues.” Despite these concerns, the need for a common assessment model and shared terminology was a recurring theme, as expressed by a civil area participant: “There is nothing preventing us within our civil area from deciding on a common problem-solving model and shared terminology.”

The exercise leaders provided an overview of the Active Learning Classroom method, which was used for the completion of group tasks. Each group appointed a timekeeper, a moderator, and a presenter, ensuring that multiple participants took on active roles. This structured approach was new to these types of exercises and proved effective in facilitating group work and producing more consistent output across groups.

The tabletop exercise began with the Head of Civil Area South reading the strategic-level directive decision, focusing on evacuation and accommodation. Participants were divided into four groups and given time to develop a directive decision for the local level, concentrating on “what” questions to allow local authorities the flexibility to determine “how” to implement the plans. Adherence to the proposed pedagogical method and decision-making method greatly facilitated the groups’ work. The legal experts’ participation was invaluable, as they provided ongoing clarification on legal and regulatory issues.

At this stage, the scenario was presented to approximately 80 participants. The legal experts and course managers reviewed relevant legislation, and the decision-making and pedagogical methods introduced earlier. However, resistance was noted, particularly from municipal participants, who were less familiar with structured problem-solving models. One participant commented, “I must say that in our municipality, we have not progressed this far at all. We are not at the same level that the police have been for a long time. We have no experience with these types of processes. Can you try to design this exercise to be more suited to us?”

It was evident that participants with military or police backgrounds were more accustomed to structured decision-making method, while civilians found this approach less familiar. The strategic level decisions were generally well received, as they provided clear direction and priorities that facilitated task completion at the local level. Group work was notably more effective where participants had pre-existing relationships, which enabled quicker and more cohesive task execution.

There was no formal and structured assessment of the participants’ methods for dealing with tasks, because the exercise aimed to reach consensus-based solutions. However, during the final evaluation, participants expressed high levels of satisfaction. Representatives from the civil areas and the Military Regional Headquarters remarked, “Although the intention of the exercise was not to produce a basis for actual planning, the results are of such quality that they might serve as a foundation for real future planning.”

Despite initial resistance to the structured method, one participant noted, “It was good because it provided some structure for how we should complete the task and, above all, it facilitated the discussions.” This feedback underscores the positive impact of the structured approach on the overall effectiveness of the exercise.

This case study examined whether a regional civil-military exercise could enhance collaboration capacity in crisis management. It addressed three research questions: (1) whether the enhanced CA model is effective for analyzing civil-military collaboration exercises; (2) whether alignment exists among its core components; ILOs, TLAs, TA, and Context Support; and (3) whether the exercise improved civil-military collaboration capability. The findings indicate that the enhanced CA model is a useful analytical tool. Contextual Support, drawn from Edmondson’s (1999) theory of team learning, added significant explanatory power by illuminating how organizational and procedural factors shape collaboration outcomes. The alignment between ILOs and TLAs was strong, but the lack of formal TA limited systematic evaluation of learning. Nevertheless, the pedagogical design contributed to improved collaboration across organizational boundaries.

The study confirms that pedagogical alignment enhances learning effectiveness, as argued by Biggs and Tang (2011). Moreover, integrating Edmondson’s Context Support enablers such as psychological safety, stable leadership, and access to expertise proved essential. These findings support earlier research showing that civil-military collaboration benefits from stable team structures, shared understanding, and clearly defined roles (Raes et al., 2015; Wheelan, 2009). A key enabling factor was the coherence in participant selection. The exercise brought together actors from the same geographical and administrative context, who had prior working relationships. This likely accelerated team development and improved collaboration, in contrast to previous studies where unfamiliarity led to fragmentation (Borell and Eriksson, 2013; Hedlund and Alvinius, 2024; Kristiansen et al., 2017).

The exercise’s three-step structure divided by organizational level, further strengthened learning by allowing groups to work within their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978). This supports claims that instructional design should consider prior experience to optimize learning outcomes.

Legal experts also played a crucial role. Prior studies have highlighted regulatory ambiguity as a barrier to collaboration (Hedlund and Alvinius, 2024; Bollen and Kalkman, 2022; Kalkman, 2024). Here, their continuous presence enabled shared legal understanding and smoother coordination across agencies.

The CA model was implemented more rigorously than in comparable studies (Hedlund et al., 2015; Hedlund, 2016; Hedlund and Alvinius, 2024). With only two ILOs, the exercise avoided unnecessary complexity and enabled precise pedagogical alignment. A structured decision-making method helped guide group processes, although it encountered cultural and legal resistance due to Swedish principles for crisis management collaboration, which do not accept hierarchical, directive planning across organizations. This nuance illustrates how national doctrines may challenge even well-designed pedagogical models. The absence of measurable TA remains a limitation. While self-assessment and group reflections indicated learning, the study highlights the persistent challenge of integrating assessment into dynamic, high-fidelity exercises.

This study offers several practical lessons. First, the enhanced CA model, especially when complemented by contextual support, provides a structured, theory-driven approach to exercise design. Aligning ILOs, TLAs, and Context Support can increase relevance, engagement, and operational learning. Second, process-oriented pedagogies such as structured group work, decision-making method, and expert facilitation improve inter-organizational coordination. Legal experts’ involvement was particularly beneficial and should be adopted as standard practice in complex, multi-level exercises.

Yet, challenges remain. The lack of formal TA inhibits systematic evaluation of learning. Future research should explore embedded assessment methods that are both pedagogically sound and operationally feasible. Moreover, the single-country, single-case nature of this study limits its generalizability. Comparative studies across national and institutional settings are needed to further validate and refine the model. Importantly, civil-military exercises should be viewed not only as training opportunities but also as research platforms. When grounded in theory, they can generate valuable data for improving collaboration in crisis management.

The enhanced CA model, particularly when combined with Context Support, proved effective by providing a systematic structure for aligning learning objectives, activities, and organizational context. Its strength lies in translating ILOs into pedagogically sound exercises that promote meaningful engagement and inter-organizational learning. Specifically, limiting the number of ILOs reduces complexity, while aligning group composition with organizational levels ensures relevance and task coherence. Leadership by individuals from higher organizational tiers added clarity and direction, and the use of structured pedagogical tools such as defined decision-making method facilitated joint problem-solving. Together, these factors created conditions that improved coordination, supported knowledge integration, and enabled the exercise to meet its collaborative and educational ILOs.

This study relied primarily on participant observation. Including interviews or longitudinal follow-ups could offer richer insights into the perceived value and long-term impact of the training. Future research should explore methods for assessing the retention and application of acquired competencies in real-world settings. Furthermore, comparative studies are needed to evaluate how organizational culture, governance structures, and national doctrines shape the outcomes of civil-military training programs.