Trans RINA, Vol 156, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan -Dec2014
The knowledge possessed by members of such a system is
highly variable and redundant: teams
working together on a collaborative task will possess different kinds of knowledge and so will engage in interactions that allow them to pool their cognitive resources.
Knowledge is shared by the individuals through formal and implicit communication with prior knowledge of each other, enabling them to engage in heedful interrelating during tasks.
Distribution of access and sharing to information and knowledge promotes coordinated action.
Distributed cognition is predicated upon a degree of common understanding of the situation amongst the crew about the aims and objectives of the task and the agreed method of achieving the goal. Most models of Situation Awareness (SA) concentrate on the individual, however people in a JCS act in conjunction with equipment and/or as part of a wider team. This introduces the notions of shared and overlapping SA. In shared SA all members of the ship’s crew would have a common mental model and a complete shared understanding of the current (and future) situation. However, it is unlikely that an entire crew will have such a close (shared) appreciation of their situation. There will be some common elements to their SA (for example, where they are and what their immediate and longer term intent), however it is more likely that each crew member will be concentrating on the individual responsibilities associated with their role. It would actually be unproductive and inefficient for crew to attempt to achieve complete shared SA throughout a voyage.
Endsley and Jones [62] developed a model to promote shared SA which treated a team as part of a JCS.
Requirements – What information and goals need to be shared?
Devices – What devices are available for sharing this information?
Mechanisms – What mechanisms do crew members possess to aid in developing team SA?
Processes – What formal processes are used for sharing information, verifying understanding, prioritising tasks and establishing contingencies, etc.
Newer concepts of SA in a JCS draw heavily upon theories taken from cognitive science.
In Distributed
Situation Awareness (DSA) SA is held both by the various human and/or machine components right across a JCS (Stanton,
Stewart, Baber, Harris, Houghton,
McMaster, Salmon, Hoyle, Walker, Young, Linsell and Dymott, [63]). Operators are now active supervisors or managers who need to co-ordinate a suite of human and automated resources to perform a task. The automation is treated almost as part of the crew. Stanton, Baber, Walker, Salmon and Green [63] proposed a set of basic tenets underpinning DSA.
SA can be held by both human and non-human elements in a JCS.
There are multiple views of the SA of the same scene held by all the different agents.
Non-overlapping and overlapping SA depends on the human or machine agent’s individual goals: although they are part of the same system, the goals of the individual components comprising the system can be quite different.
Communication between agents in the system may take many forms including the
One component DSA is non-verbal
behaviours of others or even ingrained customs and practices.
in the system (be it human or
machine) can compensate for degradation in SA in another agent.
dispersed across human and non-human
components in the system and there is often implicit communication of information between elements rather than detailed exchange of mental models. On a bridge all agents may be co-located, however in a larger ship there is no reason why this should always be so. The agents (technological or human) may be separated by some distance. This then requires more formal communication methods to
promote DSA. BRM/MRM is mechanism by which DSA can be promoted.
one The
concept of DSA operates at a systems level, not at the individual level. It also is not shared SA.
Shared SA
implies the same collective requirements and purposes amongst
Furthermore, the human and machine components in a
system, all of whom share the same understanding of a commonly held ‘bigger picture’. DSA implies different but
Harris, Baber, Salmon, Mock, Tatlock, Wells and Kay, [64]).The EAST (Event
of Systemic
the situation develops (Stewart, Stanton, Analysis
compatible, requirements and purposes. the appropriate information/knowledge
relating to the task and the environment (held by either by individuals or captured and processed by devices) changes as
Teamwork) methodology (Baber and Stanton [65]) was developed for
the generic analysis of C4i (command,
control, communications, computers and intelligence) activity. It also incorporates the modelling and analysis of DSA at a system level.
3.3 EVENT ANALYSIS OF SYSTEMIC TEAMWORK (EAST)
EAST uses a combination of HF methods to form a framework for analysing C4i activity. A brief description of each component method is provided below:
Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) – involves
describing the task in a particular scenario under analysis using a hierarchy of goals, sub-goals and operations.
Observation – is used to gather data surrounding the scenario under analysis. The observational data
C-18
©2014: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188