Skip to Content
Last modified by Tjalling Haije on 2025/09/15 08:54
From version 2.1
edited by Rosa Van Tuijn
on 2025/06/19 14:02
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 10.1
edited by Tjalling Haije
on 2025/09/15 08:54
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -b. CFT1: Sensor data visualization
1 +d. Test CFT2: Concept of Operations
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.RosaVanTuijn
1 +XWiki.TjallingHaije
Content
... ... @@ -1,80 +1,62 @@
1 1  = 1. Introduction =
2 2  
3 -//<include a short summary of the claims to be tested, i.e., the effects of the functions in a specfic use case>//
3 +During CFT2 the main goal was to discuss and validate our developed //Concept of Operations// (ConOps) with SYNERGISE partners. Having a clear ConOps is critical for understanding how the technology is envisioned to be used, and as a framework for designing suitable Team Design Patterns that aid the mission success. The technologies that are included in the current ConOps version are: outdoor drones (RTK drones), indoor drones (OWL), body sensors (location, health, gas), C3I/IMS, connection/ communication (5G), AR for improving the efficiency, and command and control support (XAI). The information gained during CFT2 will be used to iterate and expand the ConOps (including adding the remaining technologies, such as ANYmal) and iterate on the Team Design Patterns (TDPs).
4 4  
5 -The goal of this test was to understand what type of information would support each role at different levels (strategic, tactical, operational) in performing their tasks, particularly in decision-making. We focused mainly on the tactical and operational levels.
5 +The ConOps encompasses four stages (corresponding with the ASR levels): Arrival, Wide area assessment, Worksite assessment, and Worksite rescue. For each of these stages a set of use cases has been created that demonstrates how the first responders could work together with de SYNERGISE technologies to increase first responder safety and mission effectiveness.
6 6  
7 7  = 2. Method =
8 8  
9 -For each technology, a separate questionnaire was prepared. In total, five distinct questionnaires were created in Survalyzer. All the questionnaires included the same types of questions:
9 +Two sessions were conducted to evaluate the integration of new technologies in emergency response scenarios (zoomed different use cases within the mission: see the [[c.Prototype CFT2: Concept of Operations>>doc:3\. Evaluation.c\. Prototype .WebHome]]). Each session followed a structured format involving the presentation of use cases, participant feedback, and discussion.
10 10  
11 -1. **General Open Questions**: Firstly, the participants were asked how they thought data could be helpful and how it should be visualized to be useful.
12 -1. **Information Needs**: Next, the questions focused on the different information needs of tactical and operational roles, asking participants which data they would want and need for their roles.
13 -1. **Visualization Examples**: Lastly, various examples of data visualizations were shown to get an indication of which role would want to see what type of data visualization. The examples included basic traffic lights, raw data, aggregated data, predictions, and advice. See appendix B for all the designs that have been made.
14 -
15 15  == 2.1 Participants ==
16 16  
17 -A total of 12 partners completed questionnaires during the field test in Athens. The health questionnaire was filled out by 5 partners, the communication questionnaire by 2 partners, and the location questionnaire by 4 participants. Although a questionnaire for the gas sensors (also by WEARIN’) was prepared, we decided not to focus on it in Athens since the gas sensor was not used during the exercises. The questionnaires were completed by individuals in various roles, including researchers, drone pilots, paramedics, incident commanders, chief SAR, and firefighters.
18 18  
19 19  == 2.2 Experimental design ==
20 20  
16 +The sessions followed a consistent sequence:
21 21  
18 +* Setup Mentimeter
19 +* Introduction
20 +* Explanation of terms
21 +* Overview of ConOps
22 +* Presentation of 9 use cases
23 +* Three repeated questions per use case
24 +* Wrap-up with general questions
25 +
22 22  == 2.3 Tasks ==
23 23  
28 +Participants were asked to evaluate hypothetical use cases involving advanced technologies such as drones, AR, and AI. They provided feedback on operational feasibility, safety, and effectiveness.
24 24  
25 25  == 2.4 Measures ==
26 26  
32 +Feedback was collected through Likert-scale questions, open-ended responses, and group discussions. Measures focused on perceived difficulty, willingness to adopt technology, and potential impact on operations.
27 27  
28 28  == 2.5 Procedure ==
29 29  
36 +Each session began with an introduction and overview of the concept of operations. Participants then reviewed use cases and responded to structured questions. Discussions followed each use case to elaborate on responses. Below two screenshots of the two types of questions (Likert-scale and open-ended) are displayed.
30 30  
38 +[[image:1751975958933-483.png||data-xwiki-image-style-alignment="center" data-xwiki-image-style-border="true"]]
39 +
40 +[[image:1751976021407-122.png||data-xwiki-image-style-alignment="center" data-xwiki-image-style-border="true"]]
41 +
31 31  == 2.6 Material ==
32 32  
44 +Materials included a presentation of use cases, Mentimeter for interactive polling, and transcripts of participant discussions. Technologies discussed included drones, AR systems, and AI-based decision support tools.
33 33  
34 34  = 3. Results =
35 35  
48 +These sessions were conducted during the prototyping phase of the technologies, with the goal of exploring how these tools could influence emergency operations. Participants evaluated use cases covering arrival, wide area assessment, worksite assessment, and indoor explorataion (rescue operations). Each use case proposed specific types of interactions with the technologies to stimulate discussion on operational changes, team structure, and role-specific tasks.
36 36  
50 +Key insights included the recognition that waiting for technology deployment (e.g., sending a drone into a building) is acceptable if it enhances safety or supports mission outcomes. Participants emphasized that tools should be quick to deploy and tasks should be distributed logically across roles. The usefulness of technology was seen as highly context-dependent, varying by scenario, location, and mission duration. Participants also stressed that while some tasks can be automated, human oversight and decision-making must remain central.
51 +
37 37  = 4. Discussion =
38 38  
54 +The discussions revealed a nuanced view of technology integration. Participants acknowledged that while new tools can enhance situation awareness and operational efficiency, their value depends on the specific context. For example, rapid deployment scenarios require minimal setup time, whereas long-term disaster responses can allow for more extensive setup time. The distinction between base operations and worksites was also critical—base camps may allow for more setup and analysis, while worksites demand immediate action.
39 39  
56 +Participants consistently emphasized that technology should support, not replace, human judgment. Continuous training and adaptation are necessary to ensure effective integration. There is a need to balance information richness with the risk of overload, and to consider new roles for operating and monitoring technologies. The idea of dedicated teams or experts (e.g., drone operators) was suggested to manage complexity and ensure optimal use of tools.
57 +
40 40  = 5. Conclusions =
41 41  
42 -**Health data**
60 +The sessions demonstrated that emergency responders are open to adopting advanced technologies, provided they are reliable, context-appropriate, and enhance mission outcomes. Technologies are seen as additions to the existing toolbox, not replacements for human expertise. Their successful integration requires clear protocols, role-specific training, and organizational adjustments.
43 43  
44 -Types of health data: heart rate, respiratory rate, body temperature, blood pressure, and mental health were frequently mentioned as essential.
45 -
46 -Reasoning given for roles
47 -
48 -* Team Lead - Important for monitoring the overall safety of teams.
49 -* Medical Personnel - Essential for making critical decisions.
50 -* Paramedic (Operational) - Necessary for directly treating team members.
51 -* First Responder - Relevant for personal health and well-being.
52 -
53 -Conclusion: Health data is essential for a wide range of roles, but the requirements vary greatly. Medical personnel and paramedics request detailed and contextual data, while team leaders and first responders value summaries and simple alerts more. Transparency in predictive models is necessary to build trust.
54 -
55 -
56 -**Location data**
57 -
58 -Types of Location data: Location data such as GPS coordinates, building heights, and paths to victims were frequently mentioned.
59 -
60 -Reasoning given for roles
61 -
62 -* Team Lead - Essential for team coordination.
63 -* Squad leader (Operational) - Necessary for instructing team members.
64 -* First Responder - Helps with orientation and finding victims.
65 -
66 -Conclusion: Location data plays a crucial role in both tactical and operational decisions. Tactical team leaders want aggregated and sector-based data, while operational roles such as squad leaders and first responders need detailed and real-time information. 3D maps and interactive elements are valuable tools to improve navigation and coordination.
67 -
68 -
69 -**Communication data**
70 -
71 -Types of communication data: Respondents emphasized the importance of RSSI (signal strength), signal speed, and interference detection.
72 -
73 -Reasoning given for roles
74 -
75 -* Team Lead - Important for monitoring team connectivity.
76 -* IT Specialist - Crucial for troubleshooting.
77 -* Squad leader (Operational) - Relevant for field communication.
78 -* First Responder - Only needed for personal connectivity.
79 -
80 -Conclusion: Communication plays a central role at all levels of USAR operations. Tactical users need extensive analyses to monitor team status, while operational roles such as IT specialists focus on technical troubleshooting. Advisory functions and visual simplicity could contribute to effectiveness in the field.
62 +Future efforts should focus on refining technologies to align with operational realities, supporting decision-making without complicating workflows. The insights from these sessions will guide the development of tools that are practical, effective, and respectful of the critical role of human judgment in emergency response.
1751975903430-456.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RosaVanTuijn
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +56.6 KB
Content
1751975958933-483.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RosaVanTuijn
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +52.4 KB
Content
1751976021407-122.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RosaVanTuijn
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +122.2 KB
Content