This paper describes the use of a collaborative envisioning tool to combine the goals of disparate communities concerning the role of new sensor technologies being deployed in Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT). To do this, Cognitive Engineering intersects with the sensor development and military operations communities. Through the use of scenario-based design and the Topic Landscape tool, generic patterns provide seeds that help envision realistic futures of MOUT which are expressed in a narrative. These patterns provide insight on two levels: On one level they describe complexities inherent to all cognitive work, while on another level they provide insight about what makes MOUT difficult. The Topic Landscape is a collaborative tool that organizes information from a Cognitive Task Analysis of MOUT in many forms (text, graphics, video, etc.) from many contributors. This approach turns scenarios from a validation tool to an effective envisioning tool.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarrollJ. M.RossonM. B. (1992) Getting around the task-artifact cycle: How to make claims and design by scenarioACM Transactions on Information Systems. 10, 181–212.
2.
CarrollJ. M. (2000) Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human-Computer Interactions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
3.
ChristoffersenK.WoodsD. D.BlikeG. T. (2001). Extracting Event Patterns From Telemetry Data. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th annual meeting. 8-12 October, Minneapolis, MN.
4.
ChristoffersenK.WoodsD. D. (2002). How to make automated systems team players. In SalasE.Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, Volume 2. St. Louis, MO, Elsevier Science, 1–12.
5.
CookR. I.WoodsD. D.McDonaldJ. S. (1991). Human Performance in Anesthesia: A Corpus of Cases. Cognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory Report.
6.
DekkerS. W. A.WoodsD. D. (1999) To Intervene or Not to Intervene: The Dilemma of Management by ExceptionCognition, Technology and Work, 1, 86–96.
7.
FeltovichP. J.HoffmanR. R.WoodsD. D.RoeslerA. (2004). Looking at Cognitive Engineers Doing Cognitive Engineering: Implications of the Reductive Tendency for the Design of Complex Socio-technical Systems. IEEE Intelligent Systems, May/June, 90–94.
8.
InnocentiC. W. (2002). Intelligence Analysis for Urban Combat. UnitedStates Army Command and General Staff College, 2002.
9.
LutzhoftM. H.DekkerS. W. A. (2002). On Your Watch: Automation on the Bridge. Journal of Navigation, 55 (1), 83–96.
10.
National Transportation Safety Board. (1986). China Airlines B-747-SP, 300 NM northwest of San Francisco, CA, 2/19/85, NTSB Report AAR-86/03.
11.
RoeslerA.FeilM.WoodsD. D. (2001). Design is Telling (Sharing) Stories about the Future. Cognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory, Institute for Ergonomics, The Ohio State University, Columbus OH, December 2001 at url: http://csel.eng.ohio-state.edu/animock.
12.
RoeslerA.WoodsD. D.FeilM. (2005). Inventing the Future of Cognitive Work. In JonasW.ChowR.VerhaagN.Design-System-Evolution: application of systemic and evolutionary approaches to design theory, design practice, design research and design education. European Academy of Design, Bremen, Germany.
13.
SarterN. B.WoodsD. D.BillingsC. E. (1997). Automation Surprises. In Handbook of Human Factors & Ergonomics, second edition, SalvendyG.Wiley.
14.
ShattuckL. G.WoodsD. D. (2000). Communication of Intent in Military Command and Control Systems. In CarolMcCannRossPigeau (editors) The Human in Command: Exploring the Modern Military Experience. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 279–292.
VicenteK. J. (1999). Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
17.
WoodsD. D. (1998). Designs are hypotheses about how artifacts shape cognition and collaboration. Ergonomics, 41, 168–173.
18.
WoodsD. D.DekkerS. W. A. (2000). Anticipating the Effects of Technological Change: A New Era of Dynamics for Human Factors. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 1 (3), 272–282.
19.
WoodsD. D.ChristoffersenK. (2002). Balancing Practice-Centered Research and Design. In McNeeseM.VidulichM. A. (editors) Cognitive Systems Engineering in Military Aviation Domains. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Human Systems Information Analysis Center, p. 121–136.
20.
WoodsD. D.RoeslerA.FeilM.TinappleD (2002). Steering the Reverberations of Technology Change on Fields of Practice Laws that Govern Cognitive Work. Multimedia Production at url: http://csel.eng.ohio-state.edu/laws.
21.
WoodsD. D.TinappleD.RoeslerA.FeilM. (2002). Studying Cognitive Work in Context: Facilitating Insight at the Intersection of People, Technology and Work. Cognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory, Institute for Ergonomics, The Ohio State University, Columbus OH at url: http://csel.eng.ohio-state.edu/woodscta.
22.
WoodsD. D.TittleJ.FeilM.RoeslerA. (2004). Envisioning Human- Robot Coordination for Future Operations. IEEE SMC Part C, 34 (2), 210–218.
