LifeRescue Software Prototype for Supporting Emergency Responders During Fire Emergency Response: A Usability and User Requirements Evaluation

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10272)


For an efficient emergency response, emergency responders (ERs) should exchange information with one another to obtain an adequate understanding and common operational picture of the emergency situation. Despite the current developments on information systems, many ERs are unable to get access to the relevant information as the data is heterogeneous and distributed at different places and due to security and privacy barriers. As a result, ERs are unable to coordinate well and to make good decisions. Therefore, to overcome these difficulties, a web-based application called LifeRescue was developed for supporting easy information access during emergency search and rescue operation. The goal of the paper is to test the developed LifeRescue system against the user requirements. We conducted a workshop with nine participants i.e., six ERs from fire protection service and three ERs from police service. First, the workshop session started with prototype demonstration and trial, then a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire was given, and finally a semi-structured interview was conducted to collect data on the user requirements validation. The results presented in this paper combine both qualitative and quantitative data from a semi-structured interview and a survey conducted after the prototype demonstration and trail. The interview results indicate that our developed system fulfils the user requirements of 6 ERs from fire protection and 3 ERs from police services. Furthermore, the survey results indicate that the participants would like to use our developed system frequently as they felt that it was easy for them to get access to information with a simplified view.


Emergency management Search and rescue operation User requirements evaluation Usability evaluation User-centered design Emergency response information system SUS-questionnaire Qualitative and quantitative data analysis Information awareness Information accessibility Nvivo tool Human computer interaction 



We would like to owe our gratitude to the Grimstad fire and rescue service personnel, and Kristiansand police staff who supported and allocated their time for participating in the workshop session and semi-structured interviews. We would also like to appreciate Tina Comes and Jaziar Radianti for providing their support and help throughout our research.


  1. 1.
    Comes, T., Vybornova, O., Van de Walle, B.: Bringing structure to the disaster data typhoon: an analysis of decision-makers’ information needs in the response to Haiyan. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium Series (SSS-15) on Structured Data for Humanitarian Technologies: Perfect Fit or Overkill (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nunavath, V., Prinz, A.: Taking the advantage of smartphone apps for understanding information needs of emergency response teams’ for situational awareness: evidence from an indoor fire game. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2016. LNCS, vol. 9733, pp. 563–571. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39513-5_52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nunavath, V., et al.: Representing fire emergency response knowledge through a domain modelling approach. In: Norsk konferanse for organisasjoners bruk av IT (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Netten, N., et al.: Task-adaptive information distribution for dynamic collaborative emergency response. Int. J. Intell. Control Syst. 11(4), 238–247 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Endsley, M.R.: Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: a critical review. In: Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement, pp. 3–32 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuusisto, R.: Common operational picture to precision management. In: Manage-Mental Information Flows in Crisis Management Network. Publications of the Ministry of Transport and Communications, Helsinki (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Toner, E.S.: Creating situational awareness: a systems approach. In: Medical Surge Capacity: Workshop Summary. National Academies Press, Washington (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Comes, T., et al.: Decision maps: a framework for multi-criteria decision support under severe uncertainty. Decis. Support Syst. 52(1), 108–118 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van de Walle, B., Turoff, M.: Decision support for emergency situations. Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manag. 6(3), 295–316 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Turoff, M., et al.: The design of a dynamic emergency response management information system (DERMIS). JITTA: J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl. 5(4), 1 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nunavath, V., Prinz, A.: Reference architecture for emergency management operations. In: 8th IADIS International Conference on Information Systems. IADIS, Madeira (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Leoni, M., et al.: Emergency management: from user requirements to a flexible p2p architecture. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lazar, J.: Web Usability: A User-centered Design Approach. Pearson Addison Wesley, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gulliksen, J., et al.: Key principles for user-centred systems design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 22(6), 397–409 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability engineering at a discount. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction on Designing and Using Human-Computer Interfaces and Knowledge Based Systems, 2nd edn., pp. 394–401. Elsevier Science Inc., Boston (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nunavath, V., Prinz, A., Comes, T.: Identifying first responders information needs: supporting search and rescue operations for fire emergency response. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Crisis Response Manag. (IJISCRAM) 8(1), 25–46 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lazar, J., Feng, J.H., Hochheiser, H.: Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maguire, M.: Methods to support human-centred design. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 55(4), 587–634 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nunavath, V., Prinz, A.: LifeRescue: a web based application for emergency responders during fire emergency response. In: 2016 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Disaster Management (ICT-DM). IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frassl, M., Lichtenstern, M., Angermann, M.: Disaster management tool (DMT)-usability engineering, system architecture and field experiments. In: Farshchian, B.A., Divitini, M., Floch, J., Halvorsrud, R., Mora, S., Stiso, M. (eds.) The Workshop on Ambient Intelligence for Crisis Management, Pisa, Italy (2012).
  21. 21.
    Brooke, J.: SUS-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 24(6), 574–594 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewis, J.R.: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7(1), 57–78 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lewis, J.R.: Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ using data from five years of usability studies. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 14(3–4), 463–488 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kirakowski, J., Corbett, M.: SUMI: the software usability measurement inventory. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 24(3), 210–212 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Igbaria, M., Nachman, S.A.: Correlates of user satisfaction with end user computing: an exploratory study. Inf. Manag. 19(2), 73–82 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lund, A.M.: Measuring usability with the USE Questionnaire12.”. Usability Interface 8(2), 3–6 (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kirakowski, J., Claridge, N., Whitehand, R.: Human centered measures of success in web site design. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Human Factors & the Web (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bakhshi-Raiez, F., et al.: A usability evaluation of a SNOMED CT based compositional interface terminology for intensive care. Int. J. Med. Inform. 81(5), 351–362 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nvivo: Nvivo Qualitative Content Analysis Tool (2015).
  32. 32.
    DSB: Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency (2017). Accessed 23 Jan 2017
  33. 33.
    OneVoice: Crisis Incident Management Tool (2016). Accessed 06 Sep 2016
  34. 34.
    Boden, A., Buscher, M., Zimmermann, M.L.A.: Domain Analysis II: User Interfaces and Interaction Design (2013).
  35. 35.
    Lewis, J.R., Sauro, J.: The factor structure of the system usability scale. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCD 2009. LNCS, vol. 5619, pp. 94–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Seppänen, H., Virrantaus, K.: Shared situational awareness and information quality in disaster management. Saf. Sci. 77, 112–122 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maguire, M., Bevan, N.: User requirements analysis. In: Hammond, J., Gross, T., Wesson, J. (eds.) Usability. ITIFIP, vol. 99, pp. 133–148. Springer, Boston, MA (2002). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-35610-5_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nielsen, J.: Estimating the number of subjects needed for a thinking aloud test. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 41(3), 385–397 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIEM Research Group, Department of ICTUniversity of AgderGrimstadNorway

Personalised recommendations