Enhancing Situational Awareness and Team Performance Using Network Centric Technologies

Abstract

A network-centric oriented technology that fused the User Defined Operational Picture (UDOP) and the Lightweight Collaborative Whiteboard (LCW) was compared to the baseline Global Command and Control System (GCCS). The UDOP environment allows the user to personally tailor the dynamic map and collaborate on the map via drawing, marking, and annotation that instantly appears on all other team member's maps. The GCCS map provides none of these capabilities. It was hypothesized that the UDOP environment will foster higher situational awareness and more adequate shared mental models than GCCS. Given that quality shared mental models and situational awareness have been associated with higher performance it was hypothesized that the UDOP environment would produce higher situational awareness and performance than the GCCS environment. Findings supported these hypotheses; higher situational awareness and performance were associated with the UDOP environment.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alberts

Garstka

Stein

(2000). Network Centric Warfare: Developing and leveraging information superiority. DoD C4ISR Cooperative Research Program, 2000.

Cannon-Bowers

J.A.

Salas

(1998) Eds. Decision Making Under Stress: Implications for Training and Simulation. Washington D.C.: APA Press.

Entin

E. E.

(1999). Optimized command and control architectures for improved process and performance. Proceedings of the 1999 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Newport, RI.

Entin

E.E.

Deckert

J.C.

(1991). The value of shared battle graphics to crisis resolution revisited. Technical Report 516, Alphatech, Inc. (now BAE Systems), Burlington, MA.

Entin

E.E.

Entin

E.B.

(2001). Measures for evaluation of team processes and performance in experiments and exercises. Proceedings of the 2001 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD.

Hiniker

P.J.

Entin

E.E.

(1990). The effects of shared battle graphics on team performance in crisis situations: HEAT experimental results. Proceedings of the 1990 Symposium on Command and Control Research, National Defense University, Washington, D.C..

Hiniker

P.J.

Entin

E.E.

(1992). Examining cognitive processing in command crises: new HEAT experiments on shared battle graphics and time tagging. Proceedings of the 1992 Symposium on Command and Control Research, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.

Howell

D.C.

(2001). Statistical methods for psychology (5th edition). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.

Rouse

W.B.

Morris

N.M.

(1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349–363.

10.

Serfaty

Entin

E.E.

Johnston

(1998). Team Adaptation and Coordination Training. In Decision Making Under Stress: Implications for Training and Simulation, Eds. Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Salas

, Washington D.C.: APA Press.

11.

The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP) (2006). Guide to Understanding and Implementing Defense Experimentation (GUIDEx). Ottawa: Canadian Forces Experimentation Centre,.

12.

Williams

M.D.

Hollan

J.D.

Stevens

A.L.

(1983). Human reasoning about simple physical systems. In Gentner

Stevens

A.L.

(Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 131–153.

13.

Winer

B. J.

(1962). Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.