Advertisement

Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 209–220 | Cite as

Development of a generic activities model of command and control

  • N. A. StantonEmail author
  • C. Baber
  • G. H. Walker
  • R. J. Houghton
  • R. McMaster
  • R. Stewart
  • D. Harris
  • D. Jenkins
  • M. S. Young
  • P. M. Salmon
Original Article

Abstract

This paper reports on five different models of command and control. Four different models are reviewed: a process model, a contextual control model, a decision ladder model and a functional model. Further to this, command and control activities are analysed in three distinct domains: armed forces, emergency services and civilian services. From this analysis, taxonomies of command and control activities are developed that give rise to an activities model of command and control. This model will be used to guide further research into technological support of command and control activities.

Keywords

Command and control Models Taxonomy Activities 

References

  1. Bar Yam Y (1997) Dynamics of complex systems. Perseus, JacksonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Builder CH, Bankes SC, Nordin R (1999) Command concepts: a theory derived from the practice of command and control. Rand, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  3. DoD (1999) Realizing the potential of C4I: fundamental challenges. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. Hollnagel E (1993) Human reliability analysis: context and control. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. Cognit Technol WorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Houghton RJ, Baber C, McMaster R, Stanton NA, Salmon P, Stewart RJ, Walker G (2006b) Command and control in emergency services operations: a social network analysis. Ergonomics 49(12–13):1204–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hoyle G (2001) FCTT WP 19, 13 & 15—Support facilities. Report No. SEA/00/TR/2296—CHS575/FCTT/880028 (Restricted). Bristol, SEAGoogle Scholar
  8. Lawson JS (1981) Command and control as a process. IEEE Control Syst Mag March:86–93Google Scholar
  9. Naikar N, Pearce B (2004) Analysing activity for future systems. Def Sci Technol Organ (Unpublished report)Google Scholar
  10. McMaster R, Baber C, Houghton RJ (2005) Investigating alternative network structures for operational command and control. In: 10th International command and control research and technology symposium, McLean Virignia, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Rasmussen J (1974) The human data processor as a system component: Bits and pieces of a model (Report No. Risø-M-1722). Danish Atomic Energy Commission, Roskilde, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  12. Reber AS (1995) Dictionary of Psychology. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Smalley J (2003) Cognitive factors in the analysis, design and assessment of command and control systems. In: Hollnagel E (ed) Handbook of cognitive task design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 223–253Google Scholar
  14. Stanton NA, Ashleigh M, Roberts AD, Xu F (2001) Testing Hollnagel’s contextual control model: assessing team bahaviour in a human supervisory control task. Int J Cogn Ergon 5(1): 21–33Google Scholar
  15. Stanton NA, Stewart RJ, Harris D, Houghton RJ, Baber C, McMaster R, Salmon P, Hoyle G, Walker G, Young MS, Linsell M, Dymott R, Green D (2006) Distributed situational awareness in dynamic systems: theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology. Ergonomics 49(12–13):1288–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stewart RJ et al (2007) Cognit Technol WorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Vicente KJ (1999) Cognitive work analysis: toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  18. Wainwright J, Mulligan M (eds) (2004) Environmental modelling: finding simplicity in complexity. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Walker GH, Gibson H, Stanton NA, Baber C, Salmon P, Green D (2006) EAST (Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork): a novel integration of ergonomics methods to analyse C4i activity. Ergonomics 49(12–13):1345–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Young SJ (1982) Real time languages: design and development. Ellis Horwood, ChichesterzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. A. Stanton
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. Baber
    • 2
  • G. H. Walker
    • 1
  • R. J. Houghton
    • 2
  • R. McMaster
    • 2
  • R. Stewart
    • 3
  • D. Harris
    • 3
  • D. Jenkins
    • 1
  • M. S. Young
    • 1
  • P. M. Salmon
    • 1
  1. 1.Ergonomics Research Group, BIT lab, School of Engineering and DesignBrunel UniversityUxbridgeUK
  2. 2.School of Electronic, Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Department of Human Factors, School of EngineeringCranfield UniversityCranfieldUK

Personalised recommendations