This paper summarizes multiple perspectives of the common operational picture (COP) in military and civilian crisis management domains viewed from three vantage points: historical, conceptual, and practical. The term COP extends prior research on large group displays to describe a visual representation of tactical, operational, and strategic information intended to generate situation awareness. We present four strata of interest to formulate an innovative conceptual framework of the COP based on user-team needs: structure, representation, processes, and management. This conceptual framework is applied as part of a review of recent and ongoing projects that examines current research gaps in the application of geographic information systems (GIS) to international humanitarian response.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeniniA. A.ConleyC. E.ShdeedR.SpurwayK.YarmoshukM. (2003). Integration of different data bodies for humanitarian decision support: An example from mine action. Disasters, 27(4), 288–304.
2.
BolandR. J. J.TankasiR. V.Te'eniD. (1994). Designing information technology to support distributed cognition. Organization Science, 5(3), 456–475.
3.
BradtD. A. (2003). Site management of health issues in the 2001 world trade center disaster. Academic Emergency Medicine, 10(6), 650–660.
4.
BrewerI.McNeeseM. (2004). Expanding concept mapping to address spatio-temporal dimensionality. In CañasA.NovakD.GonzalesF. M. (Eds.) Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping (Pamplona, Spain), 1:101–107.
5.
BuiT.ChoS.SankaranS.SovereignM. (2000). A framework for designing a global information network for multinational humanitarian assistance/disaster relief. Information Systems Frontiers, 1(4), 427–442.
6.
DeschampsA.GreenleeD.PultzT. J.SaperR. (2002). Geospatial data integration for applications in flood prediction and management in the Red River Basin. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2002. IGARSS ′02. 2002 IEEE International, 6, 3338–3340.
7.
EndsleyM. R. (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.
8.
GreenoJ. G.MooreJ. L. (1993). Situativity and symbols: Response to Vera and Simon. Cognitive Science, 17, 49–60.
9.
HagerR. S. (1997). Current and future efforts to vary the level of detail for the common operational picture. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterrey, California.
10.
JonesR. E. T.McNeeseM. D.ConnorsE. S.JeffersonT. J.HallD. L. (2004). A distributed cognition simulation involving homeland security and defense: The development of NeoCITIES. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting, (New Orleans, LA), Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2004, 631–634.
11.
KaiserR.SpiegelP. B.HendersonA. K.GerberM. L. (2003). The application of geographic information systems and global positioning systems in humanitarian emergencies: Lessons learned, programme implications and future research. Disasters, 27(2), 127–140.
KaragiannisD.RadermacherF. J.TeufelB.WynneB. E. (1994). Towards CSCW: Metalevel environments for enhanced group and organization effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 4(4), 367–392.
14.
KingD. (2005). Humanitarian knowledge management. Proceedings of the Second International ISCRAM Conference, Brussels, Belgium.
15.
LevineJ. M.MorelandR. L. (2004). Collaboration: The social context of theory development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 164–172.
16.
McCarthyJ. (1994). The state-of-the-art of CSCW: CSCW systems, cooperative work and organization. Journal of Information Technology, 9(2), 73–83.
17.
McDermottG.MulvihillC. (1996). Dynamic workflow analysis in a multiuser task context. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 8(4), 433–455.
18.
McNeeseM. D.BainsP.BrewerI.BrownC.ConnorsE. S.JeffersonT.JonesR. E. T.TerrellI. (2005). The NeoCITIES simulation: Understanding the design and experimental methodology used to develop a team emergency management simulation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (Orlando, FL), Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2005, 591–594.
19.
McNeeseM. D.BrownC. E. (1986). Large group displays and team performance: An evaluation and projection of guidelines, research, and technologies (AAMRL-TR-86-035). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Armstrong Aerospace Medical Laboratory.
20.
NechesR.YaoK.KoI.BugacovA.KumarV.EleishR. (2002). GeoWorlds: Integrating GIS and digital libraries for situation understanding and management. The New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 7(1), 127–152.
RajabifardA.MansourianA.ZoefM. J. V.WilliamsonI. (2004, May 9-12). Developing Spatial Data Infrastructure to Facilitate Disaster Management. Proceedings of GEOMATICS′83 Conference, Tehran, Iran.
23.
SmithR. A. (1999). The technologically hollow force of the 21st century. Air Force Journal of Logistics, 23(2), 8–12.
24.
WegnerD. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In MullenB.GoethalsG. (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer-Verlag.
