Presentation to the Interactive Situation Awareness Simulation (ISAS) Workshop May 2010 May 2010...
-
Upload
marc-hinkley -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Presentation to the Interactive Situation Awareness Simulation (ISAS) Workshop May 2010 May 2010...
Presentation to the Interactive Situation Awareness Simulation (ISAS) Workshop— May 2010
Supporting Situation Awareness in Distributed & Ad-Hoc Teams:
Foundations & Challenges
Supporting Situation Awareness in Distributed & Ad-Hoc Teams:
Foundations & Challenges
Mica R. Endsley, PhD
SA Technologies, Inc.
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?
Distributed Teams
Supplies
Patients
Facilities
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.*
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
Situation Awareness
ComprehensionPerception
Which Information
Do I need?
What Does This
Mean toMe?
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
Consequences of Poor SA
As much as 88% of human error is due to problems with
situation awareness
Situation Awareness: Drives the Decision Process
SituationAwareness
DecisionMaking Performance
The Key Factor Determining Decision Quality is SA
The Key Factor Determining Decision Quality is SA
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
Team SA
The Degree to Which Every Team Member Possesses
the SA Required for his/her Job
A - subgoal
C- subgoalB - subgoal
TEAMGOAL
SA RequirementsAcross Team Members
Army Command & Control
SA LEVEL
S2 (INTELLIGENCE) S3 (OPERATIO NS) S4 (LOGISTICS) ENGINEER
1 Areas of cover/concealment
Enemy boundaries Engagement areas Location of
restrictive terrain Map of the area Restrictive Points Significant terrain
characteristics Type Conditions City Plan Map of area Subsurface Features
Vegetation Hydrology
Location Swamps Lakes Wet Lands Rivers Bank
Slopes Water
tables Obstacles
Areas of cover/concealment
Key terrain Type Conditions City Plan Map of area Subsurface Features
Vegetation Hydrology
Location Swamps Lakes Wet Lands Rivers Bank Slopes Water tables Obstacles
Areas of cover/ concealment
Potential choke points due to terrain
Type Conditions City Plan Map of area Subsurface Features
Vegetation Hydrology
Location Swamps Lakes Wet Lands Rivers Bank Slopes Stream
beds/drainage Water tables
Obstacles Contour/elevation Firmness of ground Grade
Type Conditions City Plan Map of area Subsurface Features
Vegetation Hydrology
Location Swamps Lakes Wet Lands Rivers
Locations Conditions
Bank Slopes Condition
Water tables Obstacles
Type Location Quantity
Rocks Houses Terrain Roads Veh icles Villages Buildings Trees People Mines Location
enemy Location
friendly 2 Enemy limitations/
advantages due to terrain
Friendly limit ations/ advantages due to terrain
Effect of terrain on enemy and friendly assets
Effect of terrain on anticipated troop movement time
Effect of terrain on system detection capability
Accessibility of routes Effect of terrain on
movement times/time to position troops
Effect of terrain on rate of enemy closure
Effect of terrain on visual capabil ities
Effect of terrain on communication capabil ities
Effect of terrain on route difficulty
Suitability of land for unit
Effect of terrain on ability to access location with each vehicle type
Effect of terrain on type of vehicles to be supported
Potential approaches and exiting areas
Potential staging areas Potential terrain
suppression areas Traffic ability Visibi lity of the
locations Critical obstacle
information Past enemy usage of
obstacles Effect of terrain on
location of enemy counter attacks
3 Predicted effects of terrain on enemy COAs
Projected effects of terrain on friendly COAs
Projected terrain Projected effect of
terrain on troop movements
Predicted effects of terrain on enemy COAs
Projected effect of terrain on usage rates per item per unit
Projected effect of terrain on security of resources
Estima ted obstacle effectiveness
Predicted most secure location for assets, soldiers, vehicles
Predicted most survivable routes
Terrain
Shared SA
The Degree to Which Team Members Possess
the Same SA on Shared SA Requirements
SHARED SA REQUIREMENTS
Level 1 Enemy Number Type Proximity Friendly Units Current mission status Equipment Experience level Size Type Status
Power Weaknesses Infrastructures Roads Types Condition
Level 2 (none) Level 3 Course of Action Predicted enemy COAs Projected friendly COAs Enemy Projected enemy actions Projected enemy location Projected enemy number Projected enemy type Mission
Projected mission tasks
Shared SA Requirements
Intelligence Officer & Logistics Officer
Model of Team SA
Team SA Requirements Data
system environment other team members
Comprehension status relevant to own goals/ requirements status relevant to other’s goals/requirements impact of own actions/changes on others impact of other’s actions on self & mission
Projection actions of team members
Team SA DevicesCommunications
VerbalNon-verbal
Shared DisplaysVisualAudioOther
Shared Environment
SA SA
Mental Model
Mental Model
DATA
Mental Model
SA 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
Individual SA vs Team SA
SA SA SA
Mental Models
Goals
Mental Models
GoalsGoals
Mental Models
DisplaysEnvironment
DisplaysEnvironment
DisplaysEnvironment
Failures in Team SA
Cues
Perception Is needed informationclearly passed?
Comprehension Is information interpretedin the same way?
Projection Is same projection of actionsformed to guide expectations?
Sometimes we don’t 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.
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.
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– Don’t 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
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
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
Information Gap
Information Needed
FindSort
Integrate
Process
Data Produced
Why Data Overload?
Technology Centered DesignDesign Technologies
Let Human Adapt
Human can only adapt so far “Human Error” Resultant System is Sub-Optimized
Fatal Flaw
• Data is gathered and presented from different systems & sources
• Each new system is just added on• Data not integrated or transformed
into real needs of user• Decision maker left to figure it out
User-CenteredDesign Philosophy
Design technology to fit capability of humans
Better Decision Making Improved Safety/Reduced Injury Improved User Acceptance & Satisfaction Improved Productivity
Result
• Integrate data around real needs of decision makers
• Present information in ways that are quickly understood and assimilated
Structured Process for Designing Systems to Support SA
SA Requirements Analysis
SA Design PrinciplesSA 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 DesignSA Oriented Design
0102030405060708090
100
Enem
y Lo
catio
n
Own Pla
toon
Loc
atio
n
Highe
st T
hrea
t
Strong
est E
nem
y
Strong
est F
riend
ly
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
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 other’s perspective– Build Team SA
• What task is he on?• Is what she is doing going to effect me?• Is what I’m 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
Army Future Combat SystemsCommand and Control
Unclassified
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
Bringing Systems to Support SA to the CDC BioPHusion Center
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 developmentCurrent Incident status
Incident TypeIncident Scope
Incident NamePrimary impact zoneSafe zone
Effect of weather on escalation
WindsPrecipitationProjected weather
Effect of weather on response efforts
Geographic locationGeographic boundaries
HazardsTypeProjected impact
Safety of people and infrastructuresNumber of displaced personsNumber of casualtiesCompromised infrastructuresShelters
Location of resourcesCommand Post locationStaging areasHelipads
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
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 requirementsRequired personnel (1.1)ICS structure needed
Roles filledTeam Capabilities
Personnel capabilitiesExperienceBackgroundPersonalityStrengthsWeaknesses
Roles neededAvailable personnel
QualificationsPast response experiencePast response
performancePrior trainingReadiness
Location / jurisdictionTime on site
Contact informationIncident type (1.2)Incident scope (1.2)
Span-of-controlRatioPersonnel 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
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
StrengthsWeaknesses
Unit Task skillsStrengthsWeaknesses
MiTT training skillsStrengthsWeaknesses
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 ReadinessView
Taxonomy of Collaboration
Which Collaborative Tools Best Support Team Operations?
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
Collaboration Taxonomy Supports Selection of Best Method
(Bolstad & Endsley, 2005)
Collaboration Taxonomy Supports Selection of Best Method
(Bolstad & Endsley, 2005)
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
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
Measurement of Shared SA
Ctlr 1 Only
Tech 1 Only
Incorrect-same
Both Correct
Incorrect-different
Task A Task B
Team member 1 conveys “Task A” information toTeam member 2 as needed
Team Member
1
Team Member
2
Team member 2 conveys “Task B” information toTeam member 1 as needed
Information sharing helpsbuild common picture
Degree of Shared SAcan be establishedas well as types of
breakdowns in Shared SA