Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 353–371 | Cite as

Voice Loops as Coordination Aids in Space Shuttle Mission Control

  • Emily S. Patterson
  • Jennifer Watts-Perotti*
  • David D. Woods
Article

Abstract

Voice loops, an auditory groupware technology, are essential coordination support tools for experienced practitioners in domains such as air traffic management, aircraft carrier operations and space shuttle mission control. They support synchronous communication on multiple channels among groups of people who are spatially distributed. In this paper, we suggest reasons for why the voice loop system is a successful medium for supporting coordination in space shuttle mission control based on over 130 hours of direct observation. Voice loops allow practitioners to listen in on relevant communications without disrupting their own activities or the activities of others. In addition, the voice loop system is structured around the mission control organization, and therefore directly supports the demands of the domain. By understanding how voice loops meet the particular demands of the mission control environment, insight can be gained for the design of groupware tools to support cooperative activity in other event-driven domains.

attention broadcasting common ground coordination ethnographic study mission control mutual awareness overhearing voice loops 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bentley, R., J.A. Hughes, D. Randall, T. Rodden, P. Sawyer, D. Shapiro and I. Sommerville (1992): Ethnographically-Informed Systems Design for Air Traffic Control. In ACM (ed.): Proceedings of the CSCW '92 Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, H. and S. Brennan (1991): Grounding in Communication. In L. Resnick, J. Levine and S. Teasley (eds.): Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  3. Decortis, F., V. de Keyser, P.C. Cacciabue and G. Volta (1991): The Temporal Dimension of Man-Machine Interaction. In George R.S. Weir and James L. Alty (eds.): Human-Computer Interaction and Complex Systems. San Diego, CA: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Dourish, P. and V. Bellotti (1992): Awareness and Coordination in Shared Workspaces. In ACM (ed.): Proceedings of the CSCW '92 Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Folk, C.L., R.W. Remington and J.C. Johnston (1992): Involuntary Covert Orienting is Contingent on Attentional Control Settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, vol. 18, pp. 1030-1044.Google Scholar
  6. Gaver, W.W. (1997): Auditory Interfaces. In M. Helander, T.K. Landauer and P. Prabhu (eds.): Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, Second Edition, pp. 1003-1041.Google Scholar
  7. Henderson, D. and S. Card (1986): Rooms: The Use of Multiple Virtual Workspaces to Reduce Space Contention in a Window-Based Graphical User Interface. ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 5,no. 3, pp. 211-241.Google Scholar
  8. Hindus, D., M.S. Ackerman, S. Mainwaring and B. Starr (1996): Thunderwire: A Field Study of an Audio-Only Media Space. In ACM (ed.): Proceedings of CSCW '96 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Hughes, J.A., D. Randall and D. Shapiro (1992): Faltering from Ethnography to Design. In ACM (ed.): Proceedings of CSCW'92 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  10. Johannesen, L., R. Cook and D. Woods (1994): Grounding Explanations in Evolving Diagnostic Situations (CSEL Report 1994-TR-03). The Ohio State University, Cognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory.Google Scholar
  11. LaBerge, D. (1995). Attentional Processing: The Brain's Art of Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Luff, P., C. Heath and D. Greatbatch (1992): Tasks-in-Interaction: Paper and Screen Based Documentation in Collaborative Activity. In ACM (ed.): Proceedings of CSCW'92 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Markus, M.L. and T. Connolly (1990): Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Adoption of Interdependent Work Tools. In ACM (ed.): Proceedings of CSCW '90 Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 371-380.Google Scholar
  14. Murray, C. and C.B. Cox (1989): Apollo, The Race to the Moon. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  15. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and Reality. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  16. Patterson, E.S. and D.D. Woods (1997): Shift Changes, Updates, and the On-Call Model in Space Shuttle Mission Control. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting. Albuquerque, NM, pp. 243-247.Google Scholar
  17. Rochlin, G.I., T.R. La Porte and K.H. Roberts (1987): The Self-Designing High-Reliability Organization, Aircraft Carrier Flight Operations at Sea. Naval War College Review, Autumn, pp. 76-90.Google Scholar
  18. Ward, L. (1997). Involuntary Listening Aids Hearing. Psychological Science, vol. 8,no. 2, pp. 112-118.Google Scholar
  19. Woods, D.D. (1993). Price of Flexibility in Intelligent Interfaces. Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 6,no. 4), pp. 189-196.Google Scholar
  20. Woods, D.D. (1994). Cognitive Demands and Activities in Dynamic Fault Management, Abduction and Disturbance Management. In N. Stanton (ed.): Human Factors of Alarm Design. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  21. Woods, D.D. (1995). The Alarm Problem and Directed Attention in Dynamic Fault Management. Ergonomics, vol. 38,no. 11, pp. 2371-2393.Google Scholar
  22. Woods, D.D. and E.S. Patterson (in press): How Unexpected Events Produce An Escalation of Cognitive And Coordinative Demands. In P.A. Hancock and P.A. Desmond (eds.): Stress Workload and Fatigue. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Yantis, S. (1993). Stimulus-Drive Attention Capture. Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 2,no. 5, pp. 156-161.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily S. Patterson
    • 1
  • Jennifer Watts-Perotti*
    • 1
    • 2
  • David D. Woods
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory, Institute for ErgonomicsThe Ohio State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Now at Eastman Kodak CompanyRochester

Personalised recommendations