Human Factors studies of C2 have frequently drawn on the concept of situation awareness (SA) when trying to describe how individuals assess their environment and anticipate future events. Endsley (1995) defines SA as:
“…the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning and the projection of their status in the near future.”
(Endsley, 1987; 1988, both cited in Endsley 1995, page 36) Endsley (1995) elaborates the elements of this definition through the three-level model of SA (Figure 2.2), which sees situation awareness as an iterative, individual process that guides decision-making and subsequent action.
Situation awareness emerged as a key theme during Blandford and Wong’s (2004) investigation of emergency medical dispatch – a complex collaborative process, which involves discrete computer- supported and paper-based phases of activity. Senior staff described their situation awareness as a ‘picture in the head’; this awareness enabled them to determine the type of units to allocate to an incident and to estimate the locations of resources (Blandford and Wong, 2004). Allocators employ a number of strategies to maintain and refresh their awareness of the situation; drawing on colleagues and physical artefacts as resources. Allocators reported employing selective attention to other activity within the control room, which they refer to as ‘control ears’, in order to notice early cues (such as vehicle and job status changes) which they use to plan activities ahead of formal notifications. Additionally, Allocators frequently refer to the spatial location of tickets and their position in relation to one another to maintain awareness of allocated (in the allocator’s box) and unallocated (laid out on the desk) incidents (Blandford and Wong, 2004).
SITUATION AWARENESS
· System Capability · Interface Design · Stress & Workload · Complexity · Automation Perception of Elements in Current Situation Level 1 Decision Performance of Actions State of the Environment
· Goals & Objectives · Preconceptions
(Expectations)
Information Processing Mechanisms
Long Term Memory
Store Automaticity Comprehension of Current Situation Level 2 Projection of Future States Level 3 · Abilities · Experience · Training Feedback Individual Factors Task/System Factors
Figure 2.2: The three-level model of situation awareness (redrawn from Endsley, 1995)
The concept of SA shares some similarities with sensemaking, for example drawing on schema theory to explain the organisation of information (Endsley, 2000; Klein et al., 2007). Endsley’s approach has even been used to underpin some interpretations of sensemaking in C2 environments (c.f. Alberts and Hayes, 2003). However, it has been argued that important differences exist between SA and sensemaking. Firstly, sensemaking is conceptualised as an ongoing goal-based process of generating a plausible understanding of what is happening (Burnett et al., 2004), whilst situation awareness is concerned with building a description of the current state of the environment and then using this to inform decision-making. Secondly, Endsley’s (1995) model of SA is centred on the individual, with SA considered to be their internal mental model of the state of the environment (Endsley, 2000). Where groups of individuals are required to collaborate to achieve a goal, it is thought that they each develop their own SA and then communicate goal-relevant situation information (‘mission-critical factors’) to develop sufficient overlap in SA to achieve the task (Endsley, 1995; Nofi, 2000). This attempt to study group phenomena at the level of individual members has been criticised for missing systems-level processes that take place (Leedom, 2001):
“Domains such as surgery, air traffic and underground line control, process industry and military command all constitute examples of dynamic systems where teamwork is essential and where non-individual-centred approach is also necessary.” (Artman and Garbis, 1998, page 151)
Thirdly, in contrast to sensemaking, where action is an integral component of ‘making sense’ (Weick, 1995), within Endsley’s (1995) model, understanding is seen as a separate and preceding step to acting and so “knowing what is going on around you” (Endsley, 2000, page 5) is therefore understood to be a passive process (Leedom, 2001). Turner (2007) argues that the passive nature of the process is inadequate to explain activity during complex and dynamic situations, where “...an
effective ‘way of perceiving’ environmental behaviour may be difficult to develop (due to complexity) and, even then, may only be fleeting in its utility (due to variability).” (Turner, 2007, page 6).
Klein et al. (2006a) make the distinction between sensemaking as the process of making sense of a situation and SA as the knowledge state ‘product’ that is achieved. Similarly, Duffy et al. (2013) view sensemaking as a necessary precursor to SA in complex situations, which then feeds into ongoing processes that support SA. This difference between product and process recalls Dervin’s perspective of sensemaking as the mechanism for bridging a gap between one’s expectations (i.e. SA) and the actual development of events (Bjørking, 2010).
Whilst the concepts of sensemaking and SA are clearly associated and appear more complementary than contradictory, this thesis is primarily concerned with how C2 systems make sense of complex emergencies, i.e. how they identify and negotiate the gap between what is recognised as normal and what is recognised as unfamiliar, rather than the maintenance of this state of awareness.
Summary
From an emergency response perspective, it is often the case that decision-making is heavily constrained by well-rehearsed procedures, such that once a situation is understood, a prescribed response ‘path’ becomes evident. As Klein’s fireground commanders noted, this does not give the impression of decision making, as for experts the answer to the question of ‘what to do’ is obvious (Klein, 1993). The less obvious problem in emergencies is the precursory problem of how to define the situation, i.e. sensemaking. Once the response to a defined emergency has been initiated, SA largely becomes a passive process of monitoring events and evaluating them against expectations. Only if an unexpected turn of events occurs, will further sensemaking activity be required in order to redefine the situation and ‘bridge the gap’ in understanding.
The study of decision making in complex naturalistic settings – including emergency response – has already received extensive research attention, so instead this thesis concentrates on understanding
in detail how the equally important preceding process of sensemaking is achieved within emergency response C2 systems. This thesis also seeks to move beyond the individualistic, largely ‘in the head’ approaches taken by both NDM and SA in order to consider the role of artefacts in mediating collaborative sensemaking by groups of individuals.
2.2.4 Three perspectives on sensemaking
Pirolli and Russell (2011) propose that contemporary theories of sensemaking can be divided into three broad perspectives: the first involves the processes of representation construction; the second perspective involves the mapping of data to frames; the third perspective is the collaborative search- after-meaning.