Distributed situation awareness in an Airborne Warning and Control System: application of novel ergonomics methodology

This paper applies a distributed theory of situation awareness based upon the analysis of interactions between agents (both human and non-human) in an Airborne Warning and Control System (Boeing E3D Sentry). The basic tenet of this approach is that agents within a system each hold their own component(s) of situation awareness, which may be very different from, but compatible with, other agent’s view of the situation. However, it is argued that it is not always necessary to have complete sharing of this awareness, as different system agents have different purposes. Situation awareness is regarded as a dynamic and collaborative process that binds agents together on tasks on a moment-by-moment basis. Situation awareness is conceptualised as residing at a system, not an individual level. Data were collected from crew-members in theE3D during a series of simulated air battles. These data pertained to task structure, communications between the crew and the collection and analysis of crew actions at critical decision points. All phases of operations were considered. From these data propositional networks were developed in which key knowledge objects were identified. Analysis of these networks clearly shows how the location and nature of distributed situation awareness changes across agents with regard to the phase of operation/air battle.

[1]  Allan Collins,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing , 1975 .

[2]  M. Ross Quillian,et al.  The teachable language comprehender: a simulation program and theory of language , 1969, CACM.

[3]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  Event analysis of systemic teamwork (EAST): a novel integration of ergonomics methods to analyse C4i activity , 2006, Ergonomics.

[4]  Don R. Lyon,et al.  Using Observer Ratings to Assess Situation Awareness , 2000 .

[5]  Johan F. Hoorn,et al.  Distributed cognition , 2005, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[6]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Human Reliability Analysis: Context and Control , 1994 .

[7]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  WESTT (workload, error, situational awareness, time and teamwork): an analytical prototyping system for command and control , 2008, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[8]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  Toward a theory of agent-based systemic situation awareness , 2004 .

[9]  John Annett Hierarchical Task Analysis , 2003 .

[10]  H. Artman,et al.  Situation Awareness as Distributed Cognition , 2004 .

[11]  Daniel J. Garland,et al.  Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement , 2009 .

[12]  Edwin Hutchins,et al.  The technology of team navigation , 1990 .

[13]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Command and control in emergency services operations: a social network analysis , 2006, Ergonomics.

[14]  Gary Klein,et al.  Critical Decision Method , 2004 .

[15]  G. Oden Concept, Knowledge, and Thought , 1987 .

[16]  H. Artman,et al.  Team situation assessment and information distribution , 2000, Ergonomics.

[17]  N A Stanton,et al.  Distributed situation awareness in dynamic systems: theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology , 2006, Ergonomics.

[18]  Karel Brookhuis,et al.  Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods , 2009 .

[19]  Edwin Hutchins,et al.  How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[20]  Kip Smith,et al.  Situation Awareness Is Adaptive, Externally Directed Consciousness , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[21]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Assessing the effects of location, media and task type on team performance , 2002 .

[22]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Trust: Key Elements in Human Supervisory Control Domains , 2001, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[23]  John R. Anderson Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications , 1980 .

[24]  J Annett,et al.  A method for measuring team skills , 2000, Ergonomics.

[25]  N.A. Stanton,et al.  Levels of abstraction in human supervisory control teams , 2006, J. Enterp. Inf. Manag..