Empowering the Next-Generation Analyst

Abstract

Situation analysis for activities such as crisis management, military situation awareness, homeland security, or environmental monitoring is both enabled and challenged by access to enormous data sets. The advent of new sensing capabilities, advanced computing and tools available via cloud services, intelligent interconnections to mobile devices, and global interconnectivity with ever-increasing bandwidths provide unprecedented access to data and to computing. In addition, emerging digital natives freely share data and collaboration. Thus, on one hand situation analysts have great opportunities to access unprecedented amounts of information from sensors, human observers and online sources to assist in understanding an evolving situation. On the other hand, this access to huge data sources and computing can create a type of intelligence attention-deficit disorder, in which analysts are overwhelmed by the urgent, but lack the ability to focus on important data. This chapter provides a summary of this dilemma, describes a new analysis paradigm that links data-driven and hypothesis driven approaches, introduces a new prototype analyst workbench, and discusses an educational approach to empower the next generation of analyst.

Keywords

Human-computer interaction Data fusion Situation awareness 

References

  1. Bedworth M, O’Brien J (2000) The Omnibus model: a new model of data fusion? IEEE Aero Elect Syst Mag 15(4):1903–1910Google Scholar
  2. Blasch E, Plano S (2002) DFIG Level 5 user refinement issues supporting situational assessment reasoning. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol 4729. SPIE, Wyndham, PA, pp 270–279Google Scholar
  3. Bostock M, Ogievetsky V, Heer J (2011) Data-driven documents. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 17(12):2301–2309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd J (1987) A discourse on winning and losing. USAF, Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, ALGoogle Scholar
  5. Cai G (2007) Formalizing analytical discourse in visual analytics. In: VAST-IEEE Symposium on Visual analytics and technology, Sacramento, CA, pp 217–218.Google Scholar
  6. Cai G, Graham J (2014) Semantic data fusion through visually-enabled analytical reasoning. In: Proceedings of Fusion 2014: The Seventeenth International Conference on Information Fusion, International Society of Information Fusion, Salamanca, SpainGoogle Scholar
  7. Cai G, Sharma R, Maceachren A, Brewer I (2006) Human-GIS interaction issues in crisis response. Int J Risk Assess Manag 6(4/5/6):388–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cai G, Hall DL, Llinas J, Gross G (2014) A visual framework for data fusion in investigative intelligence. In: SPIE DSS Conference on Next-Generation Analyst II. SPIE, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  9. Carrico L, Guimarares N (1998) Integrated multi-views. J Vis Lang Comput 9(3):287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dasarathy B (1994) Decision fusion. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Endsley M (1995) Towards a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37:32–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foo P, Ng G (2013) High-level information fusion: an overview. J Adv Inf Fusion 8(1):33–72Google Scholar
  13. Graham JL (2010) Analytic decision game # 2: diabolical deeds in the district: instructor course guide for SRA 231: decision theory and analysis. The Pennsylvania State University, College of Information Sciences and Technology, University Park, PAGoogle Scholar
  14. Graham JL (2011) Analytic decision game # 3: piracy on the high seas, instructor course guide for SRA 440W: security and risk analysis capstone course. The Pennsylvania State University College of Information Sciences and Technology, University Park, PAGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham JL, Hall DL (2012) The use of Analytic Decision Game (ADG) methods for test and evaluation of hard and soft data fusion systems and education of a new generation of data fusion analysts. In: MSS National Symposium on Sensor and Data Fusion. GTRI, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall DL (2002) Semantic information fusion: breaking the bits-barrier. The Pennsylvania State University, College of Information Sciences and Technology, University Park, PAGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall DL (2011) Challenges in hard and soft fusion: worth the effort? In: Proceedings of the SPIE Defense, Security and Sensing Symposium, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall DL, Jordan JM (2010) Human-centered information fusion. Artech House, Inc., Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall DL, Llinas J (2014) The emergence of the millennium analyst: How advances in information technology and use enable asymmetric ISR. In: Proceedings of the MSS National Symposium on Sensor Data Fusion. Springfield, VAGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall DL, McMullen SA (2004) Mathematical techniques in multisensor data fusion. Artech House, Inc., Boca Raton, FLMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall DL, Hellar BD, Llinas J, McNeese M (2006) Assessing the JDL model: a survey and analysis of decision and cognitive process models and comparison with the JDL model. In: Proceedings of the National Symposium on Sensor and Data Fusion, McLean, VAGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall DL, Hellar BH, McNeese MD (2006b) Rethinking the data overload problem: closing the gap between situation assessment and decision making. In: MSS National Symposium on Sensor and Data Fusion. MITRE Corporation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall DL, McNeese M, Llinas J, Mullen T (2008) A framework for hard/soft fusion. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Fusion, Cologne, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  24. Hall DL, Chong C-Y, Llinas J, Liggins M II (2013) Distributed data fusion for network-centric operations. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  25. Hall DL, Rimland J, Shafer S (2014) A hitchhiker’s guide to distributed hard and soft information fusion infrastructure development. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Fusion, Salamanca, SpainGoogle Scholar
  26. Hall MJ, Hall SA, Tate T (2000) Removing the HCI bottleneck: How the human computer interface (HCI) affects the performance of data fusion systems. In: Proceedings of the 2000 MSS National Symposium on Sensor and Data Fusion, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  27. McNeese M, Vidulich MA (2002) Cognitive systems engineering in military aviation environments: Avoiding Cogminutia Fragmentosa. CSERIAC Press, Wright Patterson AFB, OHGoogle Scholar
  28. North C, Shneiderman B (2000) Snap-together visualization: can users construct and operate coordinated visualizations? Int J Hum Comput Stud 53(5):715CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Pike W, Bruce J, Baddeley B, Best D, Franklin L, May R et al (2009) The scalable reasoning system: lightweight visualization for distributed analytics. Inf Vis 8(1):71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pirolli P, Card S (2005) The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, McLean, VAGoogle Scholar
  31. Rimland J, McNeese MM, Hall DL (2013) Conserving analyst attention units: use of multi-agent software and CEP methods to assist information analysis. In: SPIE DSS Conference on Next-Generation Analyst. SPIE, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  32. Roberts Jr JC (2007) State of the art: coordinated and multiple views in exploratory visualizations. In: CMV’07 Fifth International Conference on Coordinated and Multiple Views in Exploratory Visualization, Zurich, Switzerland, pp 61–71Google Scholar
  33. Steinberg AN, White F, Bowman CL (1998) Revisions to the JDL model. In: Proceedings of the Joint NATO/IRIS Conference, Quebec City, QC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  34. Tang J, Cebrian M, Giacobe N, Kim H-W, Kim T, Wickert D (2011) Reflecting on the DARPA red balloon challenge. Trans ACM 54(4):78–85Google Scholar
  35. Thomas JJ, Cook KA (2005a) Illuminating the path: the research and development agenda for visual analytics. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Thomas JJ, Cook KA (2005) The science of analytical reasoning. In: Illuminating the path: the research and development agenda for visual analytics. National Visualization and Analytics CenterGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang BM, Woodruff A, Kuchinsky A (2000) Guidelines for using multiple views in information visualization. In: Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. ACM, New York, NY, pp 110–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations