Changes for page 1. Knowledge and Situation Awareness

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
22	22	How the environmental states are perceived, understood and predicted are determined by the experience and knowledge of the concerning team member. Humans develop and share **mental models** that support both the interpretation of situational conditions and the activation of appropriate behaviors and decisions (Andrews et al., 2023). This can concern for example the spatial layout ("mental map") of an oil factory, its hazards ("explosive gases"), and the related fire operational procedures (ventilation closure, boundary cooling, ...). Individual team members can have specific skills and expertise for specific tasks or problems (e.g., on the explosion risks of gas combinations, or stability of collapsed buildings). **Transactive Memory Systems (TMS) **have been developed to share "who knows what" within teams, supporting specialized task performances and coordination.  It should be noted that expert knowledge is often **implicit**. For example, team performance can benefit from implicit coordination for both routine and non-routine tasks, which both can be strengthened by transactive memory systems (Marques-Quinteiro et al., 2023). Based on experience, experts develop and apply intuition in the form of **heuristics** (simple, efficient rules of thumb). These heuristics are effective, and can even outperform complex reasoning in uncertain situations, when they are tuned to the current environmental states and regularities (Gigerenzer, 2023).
23	23
24	24
25		-**Table 1 **provides an overview of the different concepts of data- and knowledge driven team performance.
	25	+**Table 1 **provides an overview of the  concepts of data- and knowledge driven team performance.
26	26
27	27	(% style="margin-right:auto" %)
28	28	|=(% style="width: 170px;" %) Concept |=(% style="width: 639px;" %) Definition / Focus |= Knowledge Type |= Focus Area |= Selected Publication
...	...	@@ -37,11 +37,10 @@
37	37
38	38	Important **evaluation method**s are the following:
39	39
40		-* **Situational Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT)** is a widely used method by periodically freezing the test use case (e.g., a simulation) and querying participants about the status of the environment. There is also a version (Team SAGAT) for assessing shared situation awareness [3-5].
	40	+* **Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT)** is a widely used method by periodically freezing the test use case (e.g., a simulation) and querying participants about the status of the environment. There is also a version (Team SAGAT) for assessing shared situation awareness [3-5].
41	41	* **Situation Present Assessment Method (SPAM)** measures SA by requiring participants to answer queries about the environment in real time. Team SPAM focuses on real-time queries to multiple team members to assess their collective awareness [5-7].
42	42	* **Teamwork Situational Awareness Rating Technique (TSART)** is a subjective measure of distributed (team) situation awareness in which team members rate their awareness of other team members’ activities and intentions [8].
43	43
44		-
45	45	= Implications for SYNERGISE: =
46	46
47	47	Enhancing SA is a primary claim for both our drone and sensor interventions. Participants acknowledged that tools like drones can indeed **enhance situation awareness and efficiency**, but **context matters**. In fast-paced scenarios, they favored minimal setup and real-time feeds for immediate SA, whereas in longer operations more detailed analysis was acceptable. Crucially, responders want technology to support their SA //without supplanting their judgment//. Maintaining **human oversight** of autonomous systems was deemed important so that the team’s situational understanding remains aligned with reality.