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