Advertisement

Team Situation Awareness: A Review of Definitions and Conceptual Models

  • Manrong She
  • Zhizhong Li
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10275)

Abstract

Situation awareness (SA) has been a hot topic in the area of human factors and ergonomics. The SA in collaborative socio-technical systems, which is called team situation awareness (TSA), also draws increasing attentions. TSA is considered as a critical influencing factor in task performance. Like SA and many other psychological constructs, TSA receives numerous controversies in its definitions, conceptual models, theoretical underpinnings, etc. Based on a careful review of literature, this paper provides a summary and comparison of different TSA definitions, conceptual models and theoretical underpinnings. Several relevant but confusing terms are distinguished. The major controversies on TSA, including the critiques and responses, are also reviewed. The review is expected to help readers to have a comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of TSA.

Keywords

Team Situation awareness Definition Conceptual model Controversy 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the Open Funding Project of National Key Laboratory of Human Factors Engineering (Grant No. HF2012-K-02) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71371104).

References

  1. 1.
    Stanton, N.A., Young, M.S.: A proposed psychological model of driving automation. Theor. Iss. Ergon. Sci. 1(4), 315–331 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wickens, C.D.: Situation awareness: review of Mica Endsley’s 1995 articles on situation awareness theory and measurement. Hum. Factors 50(3), 397–403 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H., Salas, E., Hancock, P.A.: State-of-science: situation awareness in individuals, teams and systems. Ergonomics 1–33 (2017, just-accepted)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salmon, P.M., Stanton, N.A., Walker, G.H., Baber, C., Jenkins, D.P., McMaster, R., Young, M.S.: What really is going on? Review of situation awareness models for individuals and teams. Theor. Iss. Ergon. Sci. 9(4), 297–323 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220701561775
  5. 5.
    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tenney, Y.J., Pew, R.W.: Situation awareness catches on: what? So what? Now what? Rev. Hum. Factors Ergon. 2(1), 1–34 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, S., Liao, Z., Zhou, Y., Wang, X., Tao, D.: Analyzing and modeling of crew team situation awareness. In: Long, S., Dhillon, B.S. (eds.) Man-Machine-Environment System Engineering. LNEE, vol. 406, pp. 121–131. Springer, Singapore (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-2323-1_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dourish, P., Bellotti, V.: Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work, December 1992, pp. 107–114. ACM (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S.: The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed collaboration (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gao, Q., Yu, W., Jiang, X., Song, F., Pan, J., Li, Z.: An integrated computer-based procedure for teamwork in digital nuclear power plants. Ergonomics 58(8), 1303–1313 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Endsley, M.R.: Situation awareness: operationally necessary and scientifically grounded. Cogn. Technol. Work 17(2), 163–167 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0323-5
  12. 12.
    Endsley, M.R.: Situation awareness misconceptions and misunderstandings. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Making 9(1), 4–32 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343415572631
  13. 13.
    Endsley, M.R.: Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). In: Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, NAECON 1988, pp. 789–795. IEEE (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fracker, M.L.: A theory of situation assessment: implications for measuring situation awareness. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 102–106. SAGE Publications (1988)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fracker, M.L.: Measures of situation awareness: review and future directions (No. AL-TR-1991–0128). Logue (George E) Inc., Montoursville, PA (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sarter, N.B., Woods, D.D.: Situation awareness: a critical but ill-defined phenomenon. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 1(1), 45–57 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dominguez, C.: Can SA be defined. In: Situation Awareness: Papers and Annotated Bibliography, pp. 5–15 (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor, R.M.: Situational awareness rating technique (SART): the development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In: AGARD, Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations, no. 90-28972 23-53, 17 p. (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Selcon, S.J., Taylor, R.M.: Evaluation of the situational awareness rating technique (SART) as a tool for aircrew systems design. In: AGARD, Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations, no. 90-28972 23-53, 8 p. (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Adams, M.J., Tenney, Y.J., Pew, R.W.: Situation awareness and the cognitive management of complex systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 85–104 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith, K., Hancock, P.A.: Situation awareness is adaptive, externally directed consciousness. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 37(1), 137–148 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neisser, U.: Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology. WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co., New York (1976)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H., Jenkins, D.: Genotype and phenotype schemata as models of situation awareness in dynamic command and control teams. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39(3), 480–489 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2008.10.003
  24. 24.
    Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H., Jenkins, D.P.: Is situation awareness all in the mind? Theor. Iss. Ergon. Sci. 11(1–2), 29–40 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220903009938
  25. 25.
    Stanton, N.A., Stewart, R., Harris, D., Houghton, R.J., Baber, C., McMaster, R., Linsell, M.: Distributed situation awareness in dynamic systems: theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology. Ergonomics, 49(12–13), 1288–1311 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shu, Y., Furuta, K.: An inference method of team situation awareness based on mutual awareness. Cogn. Technol. Work 7(4), 272–287 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-005-0012-x
  27. 27.
    Salas, E., Dickinson, T.L., Converse, S.A., Tannenbaum, S.I.: Toward an understanding of team performance and training (1992)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Salas, E., Prince, C., Baker, D.P., Shrestha, L.: Situation awareness in team performance: implications for measurement and training. Hum. Factors 37(1), 123–136 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Endsley, M.R., Jones, W.M.: A model of inter-and intra-team situational awareness: implications for design, training and measurement. In: McNeese, M., Salas, E., Endsley, M. (eds.) New trends in Cooperative Activities: Understanding System Dynamics in Complex Environments, pp. 46–68. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Salas, E., Shuffler, M.L., Thayer, A.L., Bedwell, W.L., Lazzara, E.H.: Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: a scientifically based practical guide. Hum. Resour. Manage. 54(4), 599–622 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21628
  31. 31.
    Endsley, M.R., Robertson, M.M.: Situation awareness in aircraft maintenance teams. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 26(2), 301–325 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wellens, A.R.: Group situation awareness and distributed decision making: from military to civilian applications. In: Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues, pp. 267–287 (1993)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bratman, M.E.: Shared cooperative activity. Philos. Rev. 101(2), 327–341 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schmidt, K.: Some notes on mutual awareness. COTCOS, CTI, DTU, Copenhagen, Denmark (1998)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Artman, H., Garbis, C.: Team communication and coordination as distributed cognition. In: 9th Conference of Cognitive Ergonomics, pp. 151–156 (1998)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Endsley, M., Jones, W.M.: Situation awareness information dominance & information warfare. Logicon Technical Services Inc., Dayton, OH (1997)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Perla, P.P., Markowitz, M., Nofi, A.A., Weuve, C., Loughran, J.: Gaming and shared situation awareness (No. CRM-D0002722. A2). Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, VA (2000)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Salas, E., Stout, R., Cannon-Bowers, J.: The role of shared mental models in developing shared situational awareness. In: Situational Awareness in Complex Systems, pp. 297–304 (1994)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dekker, S., Lützhöft, M.: Correspondence, cognition and sensemaking: a radical empiricist approach to situation awareness (2004)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Salmon, P.M., Stanton, N.A., Young, K.L.: Situation awareness on the road: review, theoretical and methodological issues, and future directions. Theor. Iss. Ergon. Sci. 13(4), 472–492 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sorensen, L.J., Stanton, N.A., Banks, A.P.: Back to SA school: contrasting three approaches to situation awareness in the cockpit. Theor. Iss. Ergon. Sci. 12(6), 451–471 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Plant, K.L., Stanton, N.A.: The explanatory power of schema theory: theoretical foundations and future applications in Ergonomics. Ergonomics 56(1), 1–15 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Endsley, M.R.: Situation awareness: progress and directions. In: A Cognitive Approach to Situation Awareness: Theory, Measurement and Application, pp. 317–341 (2004)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ackerman, R.K.: New Display Advances Brighten Situational Awareness Picture. Combat Edge (1998)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jenkins, D.P., Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H., Young, M.S.: Using cognitive work analysis to explore activity allocation within military domains. Ergonomics 51(6), 798–815 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations