Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 567–582 | Cite as

Enhancing information interaction as a means for situation awareness maintenance in mobile field work

  • Heljä FranssilaEmail author
Original Article


Maintenance of situation awareness is of critical importance for the safe and productive execution of mobile field work. However, there is scarcity of research considering maintenance of situation awareness in mobile field work settings. The case study analyses information interaction as a means to maintain situation awareness. The empirical data for the study were collected from security service personnel participating in a pilot of guarding service based on NFC (near field communication) technology. NFC enables ubiquitous and location- and context-aware computing. Interviews, on-site observation and a questionnaire were conducted to define situation awareness requirements and to assess both current user experiences and future scenarios of NFC-based information support for security service work. Results of the study show that information interaction challenges were related to non-value-adding information activities when trying maintain situation awareness. Challenges were related to disturbances in information flow between clients, security service back office and field. It was found that maintaining situation awareness in circuit guarding was more challenging than in local guarding. Future NFC functionalities providing information support in particular for maintenance of short-term situation awareness were assessed as promising.


Internet of Things Security service work Mobile work Information interaction Situation awareness Case study Information waste 


  1. Ailisto H et al (2007) Physical browsing with NFC technology. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, EspooGoogle Scholar
  2. Blandford A, Attfield S (2010) Interacting with Information. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San RafaelGoogle Scholar
  3. Brady PW, Goldenhar LM (2014) A qualitative study examining the influences on situation awareness and the identification, mitigation and escalation of recognised patient risk. BMJ Qual Saf 23(2):153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Connors ES, Endsley MR, Jones L (2007) Situation awareness in the power transmission and distribution industry. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE Publications, p 215Google Scholar
  5. Crandall B, Klein GA, Hoffman RR (2006) Working minds: a practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Endsley MR (1993) A survey of situation awareness requirements in air-to-air combat fighters. Int J Aviat Psychol 3(2):157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Endsley MR (2013) Situation awareness-oriented design. In: Lee JD, Kirlik A (eds) The Oxford handbook of cognitive engineering. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 272–285Google Scholar
  8. Endsley MR, Jones DG (2011) Designing for situation awareness. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Endsley MR, Robertson MM (2000) Situation awareness in aircraft maintenance teams. Int J Ind Ergon 26(2):301–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franssila H (2012) Information waste: qualitative study in manufacturing enterprises. In: Møller C, Chaundry S (eds) Advances in enterprise information systems II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franssila H, Okkonen J, Savolainen R (2015) Developing measures for information ergonomics in knowledge work. Ergonomics 20:1–14Google Scholar
  12. Gawron VJ (2008) Human performance, workload, and situational awareness measures handbook. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gheisari M, Irizarry J (2011) Investigating facility managers’ decision making process through a situation awareness approach. Int J Facility Manag 2(1)Google Scholar
  14. Hicks BJ (2007) Lean information management: understanding and eliminating waste. Int J Inf Manag 27:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hölttä V, Mahlamäki K, Eisto T, Ström M (2010) Lean information management model for engineering changes. In: Proceedings of the international conference on business, economics and management (ICBEM 2010), Paris, France, 28–30 June 2010, pp 1459–1466Google Scholar
  16. ISO (2013) ISO/IEC 18092:2013. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. ITU (2016) Internet of Things Global Standards Initiative. ITU: United Nations specialized agency for information and communication technologies—ICTs.
  18. Kirsh D (2000) a few thoughts on cognitive overload. Intellectica 1(30):19–51Google Scholar
  19. Kjeldskov J, Skov MB (2007) Exploring context-awareness for ubiquitous computing in the healthcare domain. Pers Ubiquit Comput 11:549–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lähteenmäki M et al (2006) Mobile workforce services opportunity. Nokia Research Center, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  21. Lau N, Jamieson GA, Skraaning G (2013) Distinguishing three accounts of situation awareness based on their domains of origin. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE Publications, p 220Google Scholar
  22. Leskinen S (2006) Mobile solutions and the construction industry. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, EspooGoogle Scholar
  23. Lundberg J (2015) Situation awareness systems, states and processes: a holistic framework. Theor Issues Ergonom Sci 16(5):447–473MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morvik M (2013) A lean approach to information management in Statoil. Aarhus University, Aarhus.
  25. Patrick J, Morgan PL (2010) Approaches to understanding, analysing and developing situation awareness. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 11(1–2):41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perry M, Brodie J (2006) Virtually connected, practically mobile. In: Andriessen JHE, Vartiainen M (eds) Mobile virtual work. Springer, Berlin, pp 95–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perry M, O’Hara K, Sellen A, Brown B, Harper R (2001) Dealing with mobility: understanding access anytime, anywhere. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 8(4):323–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roberts R, Flin R, Cleland J (2014) Staying in the zone offshore drillers’ situation awareness. Human Factors: J Human Factors Ergonom Soc 0018720814562643Google Scholar
  29. Ropponen A, Linnavuo M, Sepponen R (2013) A novel concept of a wearable information appliance using context-based human-computer interaction. Pers Ubiquit Comput 17:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rousseau R, Tremblay S, Banbury S, Breton R, Guitouni A (2010) The role of metacognition in the relationship between objective and subjective measures of situation awareness. Theor Issues in Ergonom Sci 11(1–2):119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Salmon PM, Stanton NA, Walker GH, Jenkins D, Baber C, McMaster R (2008) Representing situation awareness in collaborative systems: a case study in the energy distribution domain. Ergonomics 51(3):367–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salmon PM, Walker GH, Stanton NA (2015) Broken components versus broken systems: why it is systems not people that lose situation awareness. Cogn Technol Work 17:179–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Skov MB, Høegh RT (2006) Supporting information access in a hospital ward by a context-aware mobile electronic patient record. Pers Ubiquit Comput 10:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stanton NA, Stewart R, Harris D, Houghton RJ, Baber C, McMaster R, Salmon P, Hoyle G, Walker G, Young MS (2006) Distributed situation awareness in dynamic systems: theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology. Ergonomics 49(12–13):1288–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Walker GH, Jenkins DP (2010) Is situation awareness all in the mind? Theor Issues in Ergonom Sci 11(1–2):29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tuikka T, Isomursu M (eds) (2009) Touch the future with a smart touch. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, EspooGoogle Scholar
  37. Väätäjä H, Egglestone P (2012) Briefing news reporting with mobile assignments—perceptions, needs and challenges. Proceedings of the CSCW’12, February 11–15, 2012. Seattle, Washington, pp 485–494Google Scholar
  38. Wallin A (2009) Vision: touching the future. In: Tuikka T, Isomurse M (eds) Touch the future with smart touch. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, pp 229–279Google Scholar
  39. Yule S, Flin R, Maran N, Youngson G, Mitchell A, Rowley D, Paterson-Brown S (2008) Debriefing surgeons on non-technical skills (NOTSS). Cogn Technol Work 10(4):265–274Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information SciencesUniversity of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations