Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 221–229 | Cite as

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

  • Rebecca Stewart
  • Neville A. Stanton
  • Don Harris
  • Chris Baber
  • Paul Salmon
  • Mel Mock
  • Kerry Tatlock
  • Linda Wells
  • Alison Kay
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Agents Systems Theory Command and control SA Teams 

References

  1. Annett J (2005) Hierarchical task analysis. In: Stanton NA, Hedge A, Salas E, Hendrick H, Brookhaus K (eds) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 33-1–33-7Google Scholar
  2. Annett J, Cunningham DJ, Mathias-Jones P (2000) A method for measuring team skills. Ergonomics 43:1076–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JR (1980) Cognitive psychology and its implications. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  4. Artman H (2000) Team situation assessment and information distribution. Ergonomics 43(8):1111–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Artman H, Garbis C (1998) Situation awareness as distributed cognition. In: Green TRG (ed) Proceedings of European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. Limerick, Ireland, pp 151–156Google Scholar
  6. Ashleigh MJ, Stanton NA (2001) Trust: key elements in human supervisory control domains. Cogn Technol Work 3:92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell HH, Lyon DR (2000) Using observer ratings to assess situation awareness In: Endsley MR (ed) Situation awareness analysis and measurement. LEA, Mahwah, pp 129–146Google Scholar
  8. Collins AM, Loftus EF (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychol Rev 82:407–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flor NV, Hutchins EL (1991) Analyzing distributed cognition in software teams: a case study of team programming during perfective software maintenance. In: Koenemann-Belliveau J, Moher TG, Robertson SP (eds) empirical studies of programmers: fourth workshop. Ablex, Norwood pp 36–64Google Scholar
  10. Gibson H, Walker GH, Stanton NA, Baber C (2005) EAST (Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork): A novel integration of ergonomics methods to analyse C4i activity. Ergonomics (submitted)Google Scholar
  11. Hancock PA (1997) Essays on the future of human–machine systems. Banta Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  12. Hollnagel E (1993) Human reliability analysis—context and control. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Houghton RJ, Baber C, Cowton M, Stanton NA (2006a) WESTT (Workload, Error, Situational Awareness, Time and Teamwork): An analytical prototyping system for command and control. Cogn Technol Work (this issue)Google Scholar
  14. Houghton RJ, Baber C, McMaster R, Stanton NA, Salmon P, Stewart R, Walker G (2006b) Command and control in emergency services operations: a social network analysis. Ergonomics 49:1204–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hutchins E (1991) The technology of team navigation. In: Galegher J, Kraut RE, Egido C (eds) Intellectual tamwork. LEA, Hillsdale, pp 191–220Google Scholar
  16. Hutchins E (1995) How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cogn Sci 19(3):265–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klein GA (1989) Recognition-primed decisions. In: Rouse WB (ed) Advances in man–machine systems research, vol 5, Jai, Greenwich, pp 47–92Google Scholar
  18. Klein G, Armstrong AA (2005) Critical decision method. In: Stanton NA, Hedge A, Salas E, Hendrick H, Brookhaus K (eds) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 35-1–33-8Google Scholar
  19. Norman D (1988) The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Ogden GC (1987) Concept, knowledge and thought. Annu Rev Psychol 38:203–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perry M (2003) Distributed cognition. In: Carroll JM (ed) HCI models, theories and frameworks. Morgan-Kaufman, San Francisco, pp 93–224Google Scholar
  22. Quillian R (1969) The teachable language comprehender: a simulation program and theory of language. Commun ACM, 12459–476Google Scholar
  23. Smith K, Hancock PA (1995) Situation awareness is adaptive, externally directed consciousness. Human Factors 37:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stanton NA, Connelly V, Prichard J, van Vugt M (2002) Assessing the effects of location, media and task type on team performance. J Def Stud 7(1):29–41Google Scholar
  25. Stanton NA, Baber C, Walker GH, Salmon P, Green D (2004) Toward a theory of agent-based systemic situational awareness. In: Vincenzi DA, Mouloua M, Hancock PA (eds) Proceedings of the Second Human Performance, Situation Awareness and Automation Conference (HPSAAII), Daytona Beach, FL, pp 22–25Google Scholar
  26. Stanton NA, Ashleigh MJ, Roberts AD, Xu F (2006a) Levels of abstraction in human supervisory control teams. J Enterp Inf Manage 19(6):676–694 Google Scholar
  27. Stanton NA, Stewart R, Harris D, Houghton RJ, Baber C, McMaster R, Salmon P, Hoyle G, Walker G, Young MS, Linsell M, Dymott R, Green D (2006b) Distributed situation awareness in dynamic systems: theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology. Ergonomics 49(12–13):1288–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stewart RJ, Salmon P, Kay A (2004) E3D Operations. DTC Report. WP1.1.2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca Stewart
    • 1
  • Neville A. Stanton
    • 3
  • Don Harris
    • 2
  • Chris Baber
    • 4
  • Paul Salmon
    • 3
  • Mel Mock
    • 5
  • Kerry Tatlock
    • 5
  • Linda Wells
    • 6
  • Alison Kay
    • 2
  1. 1.Lockheed Martin UKISHavantUK
  2. 2.Human Factors Groups, School of EngineeringCranfield UniversityCranfieldUK
  3. 3.BITlab, School of Engineering and DesignBrunel UniversityUxbridgeUK
  4. 4.Department of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  5. 5.SEA LtdFromeUK
  6. 6.Aerosystems InternationalYeovilUK

Personalised recommendations