Soft Computing

, Volume 14, Issue 12, pp 1305–1316 | Cite as

Team situation awareness measure using semantic utility functions for supporting dynamic decision-making

  • Jun MaEmail author
  • Jie Lu
  • Guangquan Zhang


Team decision-making is a remarkable feature in a complex dynamic decision environment, which can be supported by team situation awareness. In this paper, a team situation awareness measure (TSAM) method using a semantic utility function is proposed. The semantic utility function is used to clarify the semantics of qualitative information expressed in linguistic terms. The individual and team situation awareness are treated as linguistic possibility distributions on the potential decisions in a dynamic decision environment. In the TSAM method, team situation awareness is generated through reasoning and aggregating individual situation awareness based on a multi-level hierarchy mental model of the team. Individual and team mental models are composed of key drivers and significant variables. An illustrative example in telecoms customer churn prediction is given to explain the effectiveness and the main steps of the TSAM method.


Dynamic decision-making Situation awareness measurement Utility function Qualitative information 



The work presented in this paper was supported by Australian Research Council (ARC) under Discovery Project DP0559213 and DP0880739. The authors sincerely appreciate the advice and suggestions of Professor Da Ruan from the Belgian Nuclear Research Center (SCK CEN).


  1. Berson A, Smith S, Thearling K (2000) Building data mining applications for CRM. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Blandford A, Wong BLW (2004) Situation awareness in emergency medical dispatch. Int J Hum Comput Stud 61:421–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carvalho PV, dos Santos IL, Vidal MC (2006) Safety implications of cultural and cognitive issues in nuclear power plant operation. Appl Ergonomics 37:211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Datta P, Masand B, Mani DR, Li B (2000) Automated cellular modeling and prediction on a large scale. Artif Intell Rev 14(6):485–502zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Endsley MR (1995a) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems: situation awareness. Hum Factors 37(1):32–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Endsley MR (1995b) Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37(1):65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Endsley MR, Garland DJ (2000) Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  8. Fishburn PC (1970) Utility theory for decision making. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Gopal RK, Meher SK (2008) Customer churn time prediction in mobile telecommunication industry using ordinal regression. In: PAKDD2008, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol 5012, Springer, Berlin, pp 884–889Google Scholar
  10. Grabisch M, Labreuche C (2005) Fuzzy measures and integrals in MCDA. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, international series in operations research and management science, chap 14, vol 78. Springer, New York, pp 563–604Google Scholar
  11. Hadden J, Tiwari A, Roy R, Ruta D (2005) Computer assisted customer churn management: state-of-the-art and future trends. Comput Oper Res 34:2902–2917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (2000) Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115:45–65CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Herrera F, Martínez L (2000) A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 8(6):746–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hung SY, Yen DC, Wang HY (2006) Applying data mining to telecom churn management. Expert Syst Appl 31:515–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaber DB, Perry CM, Segall N, McClernon CK, Prinzel LP III (2006) Situation awareness implications of adaptive automation for information processing in an air traffic control-related task. Int J Ind Ergonomics 36(5):447–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kanno T, Nakata K, Furuta K (2006) A method for conflict detection based on team intention inference. Interact Comput 18(4):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kirlik A, Strauss R (2006) Situation awareness as judgment I: statistical modeling and quantitative measurement. Int J Ind Ergonomics 36:463–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kon M (2004) Stop customer churn before it starts. Harv Manag Update 9(7):3–5Google Scholar
  19. Lawry J (2001) A methodology for computing with words. Int J Approx Reason 28:51–89zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawry J (2004) A framework for linguistic modelling. Artif Intell 155:1–39zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Lawry J (2008) An overview of computing with words using label semantics. In: Bustince H, Herrera F, Montero J (eds) Fuzzy sets and their extensions: representation, aggregation and models. Springer, Berlin, pp 65–87Google Scholar
  22. Lu J, Zhang G, Ruan D, Wu F (2007) Multi-objective group decision making—methods, software and applications with fuzzy set technology. Imperial College Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Ma J, Xu Y, Ruan D, Zhang G (2007) A fuzzy-set approach to treat determinacy and consistency of linguistic terms in multi-criteria decision making. Int J Approx Reason 44(2):165–181zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. McMarley JS, Wickens CD, Goh J, Horrey WJ (2002) A computational model of attention/situation awareness. In: Proceedings of the 46th annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomic society. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  25. Munda G (2009) A conflict analysis approach for illuminating distributional issues in sustainability policy. Eur J Oper Res 194(1):307–322zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ruan D, Liu J, Carchon R (2003) Linguistic assessment approach for managing nuclear safeguards indicator information. Logist Inf Manag 16(6):401–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salmon P, Stanton N, Walker G, Green D (2006) Situation awareness measurement: a review of applicability for c4i environments. Appl Ergonomics 37:225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schaafstal AM, Johnston JH, Oser RL (2001) Training teams for emergency management. Comput Hum Behav 17:615–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shu Y, Furuta K (2005) An inference method of team situation awareness based on mutual awareness. Cogn Technol Work 7:272–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strauss R, Kirlik A (2006) Situation awareness as judgment II: experimental demonstration. Int J Ind Ergonomics 36:475–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Uhlarik J, Comerford DA (2002) A review of situation awareness literature relevant to pilot surveillance functions. Technical Report DOT/FAA/AM-02/3, Department of Psychology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Ying M (2002) A formal model of computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 10(5):640–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zadeh LA (1996) Fuzzy logic = computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 4(2):103–111CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of QCIS, Faculty of Engineering and Information TechnologyUniversity of Technology, Sydney (UTS)SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations