Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation to the Interactive Situation Awareness Simulation (ISAS) Workshop May 2010 May 2010 Supporting Situation Awareness in Distributed & Ad-Hoc.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Presentation to the Interactive Situation Awareness Simulation (ISAS) Workshop May 2010 May 2010 Supporting Situation Awareness in Distributed & Ad-Hoc."— Presentation transcript:

1 Presentation to the Interactive Situation Awareness Simulation (ISAS) Workshop May 2010 May 2010 Supporting Situation Awareness in Distributed & Ad-Hoc Teams: Foundations & Challenges Mica R. Endsley, PhD SA Technologies, Inc.

2 Situation Awareness to Emergency Response Teams Incident Response –Natural Disasters Typhoons Earthquakes Hurricanes –Terrorist Events Bombings Chem/Bio Attacks What is the scope & severity of the event? How many people are affected? What type of aid is needed where? Do our response teams in the field have what they need? How is the response plan working? What impact have our actions had? Are we prepared for such an event? DistributedTeams Supplies Patients Facilities

3 Situation awareness Situation Awareness is the Perception of elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the Comprehension of their meaning, and the Projection of their status in the near future.* Endsley, 1988

4 Situation Awareness Comprehension Perception Which Information Do I need? What Does This Mean to Me? Projection What Do I Think Will Happen? Incident Type Incident Scope Incident Name Primary impact zone Safe zone Geographic location Geographic boundaries Hazard Type Location of resources Command Post location Staging areas Helipads Number of displaced persons Number of casualties Safety of people and infrastructures Effect of weather on escalation Effect of weather on response efforts ICS structure needed Projected rate of increase/decrease in casualties Projected personnel requirements Projected weather impact Projected impact of solution on resources

5 Consequences of Poor SA As much as 88% of human error is due to problems with situation awareness As much as 88% of human error is due to problems with situation awareness

6 Situation Awareness: Drives the Decision Process Situation Awareness Decision Making Performance The Key Factor Determining Decision Quality is SA The Key Factor Determining Decision Quality is SA

7 Major challenges for Situation Awareness May be geographically dispersed across organization and country boundaries May be highly disrupted infrastructures Distributed teams working on problems Data spread across very disparate sources Key information may be hard to distinguish from background data –e.g. emerging diseases look similar other diseases Lots of low level data to interpret and track Data of varying levels of reliability

8 Team SA The Degree to Which Every Team Member Possesses the SA Required for his/her Job A - subgoal C- subgoalB - subgoal TEAM GOAL

9 SA Requirements Across Team Members Army Command & Control Terrain

10 Shared SA The Degree to Which Team Members Possess the Same SA on Shared SA Requirements Shared SA Requirements Intelligence Officer & Logistics Officer

11 Model of Team SA Team SA Requirements Data system environment other team members Comprehension status relevant to own goals/ requirements status relevant to others goals/requirements impact of own actions/changes on others impact of others actions on self & mission Projection actions of team members Team SA Devices Communications Verbal Non-verbal Shared Displays Visual Audio Other Shared Environment SA Mental Model Mental Model DATA Mental Model SA SHARED MENTAL MODELS DATA Team SA Mechanisms Self-checking checked against others at each step Coordinated to get information from each other Prioritized set-up contingencies re-joining Questioning as a group Team SA Processes

12 Individual SA vs Team SA SA Mental Models Goals Mental Models Goals Mental Models Displays Environment Displays Environment Displays Environment

13 Failures in Team SA Cues Perception Is needed information clearly passed? Comprehension Is information interpreted in the same way? Projection Is same projection of actions formed to guide expectations?

14 Sometimes we dont understand each other… If you tell the Navy to secure a building, they will turn out the lights and lock the door. If you tell the Army to secure a building, they will occupy it and forbid entry to those without a pass. If you tell the Marines to secure a building, they assault with heavy fire, capture the building, fortify it and call for an air strike. If you tell the Air Force to secure a building, they will negotiate a three year lease with an option to buy.

15 Sometimes we just talk past each other….. Off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision. Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision. Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course. Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course. Americans: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH, THAT'S ONE FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER- MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP. Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

16 Failures in Inter-Team SA Different teams are not aware of what information needs to be passed –One does not know what the other already knows –Dont pass higher level SA Little support for good Team SA processes between teams –Few shared devices –Non-supportive culture or limited opportunities for communication Information that gets passed may be interpreted differently –Different mental models

17 SA of Distributed Teams Maintaining SA in Teams in which Members are Separated by Distance, Time and/or Obstacles Shared SA Requirements are the same However –Fewer Shared SA Devices No Shared Environment No Non-verbal Cues –Puts Heavy Load on Verbal Communications Shared Displays if available Often Becomes the Bottleneck –Frequently Distributed Teams do not have good shared mental models Creates Opportunity for Mis- Understandings

18 Many Teams Are Also Ad-Hoc Ad hoc teams –Limited time period and for a specific purpose –Pulled from divergent areas –Increasingly prevalent Unique challenges –Intrinsic characteristics Often distributed Limited common training Limited common experience Team member turnover –Extrinsic characteristics Less concrete goals More diverse chain of command Multiple languages or technical terminology Members have other duties –Results in Lack of cohesion Limited basis for trust Poor Team and Shared SA

19 Information Gap Information Needed Find Sort Integrate Process Data Produced

20 Why Data Overload? Technology Centered Design Design Technologies Let Human Adapt Human can only adapt so far Human Error Resultant System is Sub-Optimized Human can only adapt so far Human Error Resultant System is Sub-Optimized Fatal Flaw Data is gathered and presented from different systems & sourcesData is gathered and presented from different systems & sources Each new system is just added onEach new system is just added on Data not integrated or transformed into real needs of userData not integrated or transformed into real needs of user Decision maker left to figure it outDecision maker left to figure it out

21 User-Centered Design Philosophy Design technology to fit capability of humans Better Decision Making Improved Safety/Reduced Injury Improved User Acceptance & Satisfaction Improved Productivity Better Decision Making Improved Safety/Reduced Injury Improved User Acceptance & Satisfaction Improved Productivity Result Integrate data around real needs of decision makersIntegrate data around real needs of decision makers Present information in ways that are quickly understood and assimilatedPresent information in ways that are quickly understood and assimilated

22 Structured Process for Designing Systems to Support SA SA Requirements Analysis SA Design Principles SA Measurement 50 Principles for SA-Oriented Design General Principles Confidence and Uncertainty Dealing with Complexity Alarms, Diagnosis and SA Automation and SA Supporting SA in Multi- Person Operations Cognitive Task Analysis Goals Sub-Goals Decisions Projection Requirements Comprehension Requirements Data Requirements Cognitive Task Analysis Goals Sub-Goals Decisions Projection Requirements Comprehension Requirements Data Requirements SA Oriented Design

23 Examples of Design Principles to Support SA Situation Awareness Displays Must be Customized to the Needs of the Individual –Must be the right data Situation Awareness Displays Require Integrated and Interpreted Information –Directly support rapid comprehension and projection needs Organize Information Around Goals –Central organizing feature for cognitive activity Support Data-Driven Decision Making –Show big picture at all times And Support Goal-Driven Decision Making –Allow drill down for details Confidence in Information Matters –Make sure it is included in displays Use Salient Information Features for Critical Information

24 SA Design Principles - Team SA Build a common picture to support team operations –Information sources should be consistent Avoid display overload in shared displays –Must be tailored to individual needs based on SA requirements of position Provide needed display flexibility to support shared SA across functions –Goal orientation or comparative shifts –Vantage Point –Semantics Support transmission of different comprehension and projections across teams –Quick look to others perspective –Build Team SA What task is he on? Is what she is doing going to effect me? Is what Im doing going to effect them? Limit non-standardization of display coding techniques –Need to be able to communicate on consistent symbology, color coding Support transmission of SA within positions by making status of elements and states overt

25 Army Future Combat Systems Command and Control Unclassified Fast, easy operations on the move One-step access to any screen or task Situation understanding at a glance Tailored information organized and integrated around key role goals and decisions Easy monitoring across multiple task demands Integrated collaboration tools for shared situation awareness across the distributed force Warfighter controlled flexibility for changing needs and priorities Intelligent assistance to manage workload without being intrusive

26 Bringing Systems to Support SA to the CDC BioPHusion Center

27 1.1 Assess the situation to determine needs What is the complexity and progression of the incident? Where should boundaries be established for the primary Impact zone? Where should the CP, staging areas, etc be situated? What evacuation plans and warning are needed? Are resources allocated effectively? Projected incident development Current Incident status Incident Type Incident Scope Incident Name Primary impact zone Safe zone Effect of weather on escalation Winds Precipitation Projected weather Effect of weather on response efforts Geographic location Geographic boundaries Hazards Type Projected impact Safety of people and infrastructures Number of displaced persons Number of casualties Compromised infrastructures Shelters Location of resources Command Post location Staging areas Helipads Information needed to brief Geographic locations of personnel or key command centers Geographical boundaries between units or organizations Illuminates all geo-locational data Logistics concerns Distances, Spread of incident impact zones Map View

28 3.1 Activate and maintain the IMT Which ICS roles are needed for the incident? What personnel are available? What are the capabilities of available personnel? Are command staff adhering to responsibilities? Is span-of-control optimized? Projected personnel requirements Required personnel (1.1) ICS structure needed Roles filled Team Capabilities Personnel capabilities Experience Background Personality Strengths Weaknesses Roles needed Available personnel Qualifications Past response experience Past response performance Prior training Readiness Location / jurisdiction Time on site Contact information Incident type (1.2) Incident scope (1.2) Span-of-control Ratio Personnel duties Can view own profile Can view detail experience listing for personnel resources Match capabilities to needs Fill gaps in current organizational structure Analyze personnel capabilities and experience Personnel Detail View

29 2.0 Ensure operation readiness What protocols and procedures need to be established? Which units/personnel need training in which procedures? Where are the greatest training needs? What personnel/supply needs exist? How can I help my counterpart fill those needs with host nation resources? Projected training needs Operational Readiness Impact of counterpart capabilities Impact of MiTT training abilities Progression through planned training flow Impact of critical tasks Impact of local threat Recent training Past training Counterpart Individual skills Strengths Weaknesses Unit Task skills Strengths Weaknesses MiTT training skills Strengths Weaknesses Projected event types counterparts will encounter Impact of local threat Recent threat trends Local insurgent capabilities Recent insurgent activity Known local threat Civilian support Civilian concerns Operational readiness Impact of counterpart capabilities Impact of civilian support Operational Readiness View

30 Taxonomy of Collaboration Which Collaborative Tools Best Support Team Operations? –Collaboration Characteristics –Timing, Predictability, Place, Interactivity –Information Types –Verbal, Temporal, Spatial, Emotional, Photographic, Video –Collaborative Processes –Planning, Scheduling, Tracking, Brain-storming, Document Creation, Data Gathering, Data Distribution, Shared SA –Tool Characteristics –Recordable, Identifiable, Structured

31 Collaboration Taxonomy Supports Selection of Best Method (Bolstad & Endsley, 2005)

32 Collaboration Taxonomy Supports Selection of Best Method (Bolstad & Endsley, 2005)

33 Conclusions Team operations are prevalent in most complex, dynamic systems Shared SA is an important component of the successful functioning of both collocated and distributed teams, and ad hoc teams of teams To support shared SA: –Use a systematic approach to determining the individual and shared SA requirements –Tailor displays to support SA for each team member & shared SA requirements –Critical to support the so what & now what analysis of data provided to the decision makers –Choose collaborative tools appropriately

34 SAGAT in Brigade Command and Control Ft. Leavenworth Division (7 Versions) Brigade (6 Versions) Commander/Deputy Commander Information Superiority Fires And Effects Maneuver And Support Build And Sustain Command Integration Battalion (2 Versions) Battalion NLOS/Aviation Detachment

35 Measurement of Shared SA Task A Task B Team member 1 conveys Task A information to Team member 2 as needed Team Member 1 Team Member 2 Team member 2 conveys Task B information to Team member 1 as needed Information sharing helps build common picture Degree of Shared SA can be established as well as types of breakdowns in Shared SA


Download ppt "Presentation to the Interactive Situation Awareness Simulation (ISAS) Workshop May 2010 May 2010 Supporting Situation Awareness in Distributed & Ad-Hoc."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google