Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

12 February 2008 Human-Human Interactions to Guide Collaborative Decision Making Design – The Cockpits Perspective Matthias Groppe - Marc Bui Laboratoire.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "12 February 2008 Human-Human Interactions to Guide Collaborative Decision Making Design – The Cockpits Perspective Matthias Groppe - Marc Bui Laboratoire."— Presentation transcript:

1 12 February 2008 Human-Human Interactions to Guide Collaborative Decision Making Design – The Cockpits Perspective Matthias Groppe - Marc Bui Laboratoire dInformatique et des Systèmes Complexes Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris-Sorbonne Cranfield University Matthias Groppe - Marc Bui Laboratoire dInformatique et des Systèmes Complexes Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris-Sorbonne Cranfield University 1st International Conference on Advances in Computer- Human Interaction - Sainte Luce, Martinique

2 1 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 Introduction Cockpits operational decision making is based on insufficient quality & flow of information (observation & own experience) But operational efficiency within ATM requires all partners to have the complete picture (Common Situational Awareness CSA) Airport CDM includes information sharing & CSA as concept elements Cockpits operational decision making is based on insufficient quality & flow of information (observation & own experience) But operational efficiency within ATM requires all partners to have the complete picture (Common Situational Awareness CSA) Airport CDM includes information sharing & CSA as concept elements

3 2 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 Introduction But how is the information shared on a day-to-day basis?

4 3 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 Introduction Information is shared via human-machine interactions (e.g. ACARS) and human- human interactions (e.g. radio, telephone, or face-to-face)

5 4 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 The Challenge From human-human interaction to human-human cooperation –But: Different operational domains have unique situational constraints –Is it possible to establish a global goal among all partners? –Can conflicting interests be identified ? Investigation modes include observation and a cockpit survey From human-human interaction to human-human cooperation –But: Different operational domains have unique situational constraints –Is it possible to establish a global goal among all partners? –Can conflicting interests be identified ? Investigation modes include observation and a cockpit survey

6 5 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 The Background Flight operation situations are highly dynamic and require synchronous human-human cooperation between pilots and other operators –Problem: How can we measure level of cooperation? –Application of a theoretical model from J. Ferber [1] on human-human interactions among pilots & other actors –Interaction situations are classified via aims, resources, and abilities in regard to assigned tasks Flight operation situations are highly dynamic and require synchronous human-human cooperation between pilots and other operators –Problem: How can we measure level of cooperation? –Application of a theoretical model from J. Ferber [1] on human-human interactions among pilots & other actors –Interaction situations are classified via aims, resources, and abilities in regard to assigned tasks [1] J. Ferber (1995) Multi-Agent Systems, Addison-Wesley, Munich

7 6 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 The Theoretical Background Classification of Interaction Situations (Ferber,1995) [1] J. Ferber (1995) Multi-Agent Systems, Addison-Wesley, Munich Aims/ InterestsRessourcesAbilitiesType of SituationCategory compatiblesufficient Independence Indifference compatiblesufficientinsufficientsimple working together Indifference compatibleinsufficientsufficientblockade Cooperation compatibleinsufficient coordinated collaboration Cooperation incompatiblesufficient pure individual competition Cooperation incompatiblesufficientinsufficientpure individual competition Antagonism incompatibleinsufficientsufficientindividual resource conflict Antagonism incompatibleinsufficient collective resource conflict Antagonism

8 7 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 The Practical Background Pilots are neutral users of the ATM system –Non-punishment versus bonus-malus practice Prototypical interactions at several flight situations are described and analysed at action level [2] –Action level refers to interactions with a shorter time span and less abstraction than interactions at planning level –Possible situations during flight and turn-round Pilots are neutral users of the ATM system –Non-punishment versus bonus-malus practice Prototypical interactions at several flight situations are described and analysed at action level [2] –Action level refers to interactions with a shorter time span and less abstraction than interactions at planning level –Possible situations during flight and turn-round [2] Jean-Michel Hoc (2000) From Human-Human Interaction to Human-Machine Cooperation

9 8 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 The Scope of Human-Human Interactions Strategic Pre-tactical Tactical Ad hoc LANDSIDE OPERATION AIRSIDE OPERATION Interactions across different layers APOC ATC, Aircraft Operator, Airport, Ground Handler, ATFCM, Supervisor actors ATC Ramp Agent Pilots Dispatch …. Detail of Information Operation Centres ATC - Aircraft Operators Ground Handler - Airport Distance to Action Meta Cooperation Cooperation in Planning Cooperation in Action

10 9 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 The Aims Identify, how human-human interactions are established between pilots and other actors in critical situations during flight & turn-round Identification of cooperative behaviour within day-to- day interactions (cooperation or non-cooperation) Assessing, how further interactions in form of negotiation (interference creation – mutual goal identification – resolution+/-) have positive effect on cooperation (mutual agreement on goal) [2] Identify, how human-human interactions are established between pilots and other actors in critical situations during flight & turn-round Identification of cooperative behaviour within day-to- day interactions (cooperation or non-cooperation) Assessing, how further interactions in form of negotiation (interference creation – mutual goal identification – resolution+/-) have positive effect on cooperation (mutual agreement on goal) [2] [2] Jean-Michel Hoc (2000) From Human-Human Interaction to Human-Machine Cooperation

11 10 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 The Approach In-depth interviews with senior commanders of different airlines in order to identify critical key events during turn-round and flight situations (action level) Self-administered on-line questionnaire based on critical interaction situations using classification of interactions adapted from Ferber [1] Further actions include semi-structured individual interviews to understand emergence of cooperation on action level to guide future CDM operation on planning level (strategic & pre-tactical) In-depth interviews with senior commanders of different airlines in order to identify critical key events during turn-round and flight situations (action level) Self-administered on-line questionnaire based on critical interaction situations using classification of interactions adapted from Ferber [1] Further actions include semi-structured individual interviews to understand emergence of cooperation on action level to guide future CDM operation on planning level (strategic & pre-tactical)

12 11 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 Sample Questions I: Cooperation SITUATION I DURING TURN-ROUND: Please recollect any of your more recent flights: you have just landed at your destination and your parking stand is still occupied. 1. When were you notified of that? after landing during flight I did not encounter a situation like this 2.a. How long did you have to wait for your parking stand? 1-5 minutes 6-10 minutes minutes minutes more than 20 minutes 3. On a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 ( extremely important), how would you rate timely notification of parking stand problems? 1 (Not important) (Extremely important) 4. At which airport did this happen? Hub airport (LHR/FRA/CDG/AMS/MAD/LGW/FCO/ORY/MUC/BCN) Other airport than above 5. How often does this happen? daily weekly monthly quarterly 6. Do you think this would be avoidable through better planning? YES NO Dont know

13 12 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 Sample Questions I: Interaction Components SITUATION DURING TURN-ROUND II 7. With your experience, what could be the reason(s) for this delay? a) a) Competing interests among functions responsible for the allocation of the parking stand such as airport, airline, and ground handling (e.g. decision making responsibility is unclear). 1 (not very likely) (very likely) b) Not enough parking stands available 1 (not very likely) (very likely) c) Inability of responsible function/individual, to timely allocate another gate/stand 1 (not very likely) (very likely)

14 13 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 Sample Questions II: Cooperation SITUATION DURING TURN-ROUND OR FLIGHT: Please recollect your last flight or turn-round where YOU have yourself proposed operational changes (e.g. via ACARS, telephone, radio…) Your proposal was about: Speed-/ cruising altitude changes Shortcuts on planned routing Necessary technical repair during turnaround Connecting passenger Other changes or information (please name)……………….. I did not encounter a situation like this 1. Consequences from your proposal: Your proposal was considered (you got an answer on your proposal) Your proposal was not considered (no reaction on your proposal) 2. How much delay (departure or arrival) did you encounter because of this? 1-5 minutes 6-10 minutes minutes minutes more than 20 minutes no delay encountered 3. On a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (Exremely important), how would you rate timely reaction on your proposal? 1 (Not important) (Extremely important) 4. At which location did this happen: At a hub airport (LHR/FRA/CDG/AMS/MAD/LGW/FCO/ORY/MUC/BCN) Other airport than above 5. How often does this happen? daily weekly monthly quarterly 6. Do you think this would be avoidable through better planning? YES NO Dont know

15 14 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 Sample Questions II: Interaction Components 7. In your opinion, what could be the reason(s) for the late information? a) Competing interests among responsible persons like technicians, airline company, flight manager, ATC, pilots…. 1 (not very likely) (very likely) b) Not enough resources available (e.g. airspace, noise procedures, personnel..) 1 (not very likely) (very likely) c) Inability of the responsible function/individual, to perform the assigned task 1 (not very likely) (very likely)

16 15 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 Additional Benefits from Questionnaire Identification of constrained resources Decision Making or Sharing of Responsibilities: Best placed or provoking conflicts Identification of constrained resources Decision Making or Sharing of Responsibilities: Best placed or provoking conflicts

17 16 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 Conclusions Study of cockpits perspective on interactions allows an neutral analysis of turn-round and flight operation situations Results can be used to improve predictability of airside operation and system behaviour simulation Include a behavioural & cognitive perspective to decision making in complex systems Guide future CDM procedure development and performance measures Study of cockpits perspective on interactions allows an neutral analysis of turn-round and flight operation situations Results can be used to improve predictability of airside operation and system behaviour simulation Include a behavioural & cognitive perspective to decision making in complex systems Guide future CDM procedure development and performance measures

18 17 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47 THANK YOU! Q & A?


Download ppt "12 February 2008 Human-Human Interactions to Guide Collaborative Decision Making Design – The Cockpits Perspective Matthias Groppe - Marc Bui Laboratoire."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google