Measuring Mutual Awareness for Digital Human-Machine Interfaces: A Questionnaire for Simulator Studies

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 778)


As technology shifts from analog to digital in the nuclear power plant (NPP) main control room (MCR), it is important to look into the concept of mutual awareness. As control rooms use teams consisting of at least two reactor operators (ROs) and one senior reactor operator (SRO) to monitor and operate the plant, they depend on efficient teamwork in this collaborative environment. To successfully perform interdependent tasks, achieve their shared goals and high levels of coordination, each crew member has to maintain mutual awareness between each other. Collaboration is more efficient and effective when a high level of mutual awareness is maintained. Being able to evaluate and measure mutual awareness will provide us with the construct for assessing the presence and changes in mutual awareness during the technology shift in NPP MCR. This paper investigates the opportunities to develop a mutual awareness survey based on the mutual awareness model.


Mutual awareness Main control room Nuclear power plant Teamwork Communication Coordination Backup Automation 


Disclaimer and Acknowledgements

The opinions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author and do not represent official position. This work of authorship was prepared as an account of work sponsored by Idaho National Laboratory, an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights. Idaho National Laboratory is a multi-program laboratory operated by Battelle Energy Alliance LLC, for the United States Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517. This research was funded through the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program at Idaho National Laboratory.


  1. 1.
    Juhász, M., Soós, J.K.: Human aspects of NPP operator teamwork. In: Tsvetkov, P. (ed.) Nuclear Power - Control, Reliability and Human Factors. InTech (2011). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Plott, C., Engh, T., Barnes, V.: Technical basis for regulatory guidance for assessing exemption requests from the nuclear power plant licensed operator staffing requirements specified in 10 CFR 50.54(m). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, NUREG/CR-6838 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Hara, J.M., Higgins, J.C., Persensky, J.J., Lewis, P.M., Bongarra, J.P.: Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model (NUREG-0711, Rev.2). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li, Z., She, M.: Design and evaluation of a team mutual awareness toolkit for digital interfaces of nuclear power plant context. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 33, 744–755 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Savchenko, K., Medema, H., Boring, R., Ulrich, T.: Comparison of mutual awareness in analog vs. digital control rooms. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Human Error, Reliability, Resilience, and Performance (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hickling, E.M., Bowie, J.E.: Applicability of human reliability assessment methods to human–computer interfaces. Cogn. Tech. Work 2013(15), 19–27 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, P., Li, Z.: Comparison between conventional and digital nuclear power plant main control rooms: a task complexity perspective, Part II: detailed results and analysis. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 51, 10–20 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sarter, N.B., Woods, D.D., Billings, C.E.: Automation surprises. In: Salvendy, G. (ed.) Handbook of Human Factors & Ergonomics, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin, C.J., Hsieh, T.L., Tsai, P.J., Yang, C.W., Yenn, T.C.: Development of a team workload assessment technique for the main control room of advanced nuclear power plants. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 21(4), 397–411 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wiener, E.L.: Human factors of advanced technology (‘glass cockpit’) transport aircraft. NASA Technical report 117528. NASA-Ames Research Center, California, USA (1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Savioja, P., Aaltonen, I., Karvonen, H., Koskinen, H., Laarni, J., Liinasuo, M., Norros, L.: Systems usability concerns in hybrid control rooms. In: 8th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Power Plant Instrumentation, Control, and Human-Machine Interface Technologies, San Diego, CA (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sebok, A.: Team performance in process control: influences of interface design and staffing levels. Ergonomics 43(8), 1210–1236 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wright, M., Kaber, D.: Effects of automation of information-processing functions on teamwork. Hum. Fact. 47(1), 50–66 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Woods, D.D.: Visual momentum: a concept to improve the cognitive coupling of person and computer. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 21, 229–244 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaber, D., Endsley, M.: Out-of-the-loop performance problems and the use of intermediate levels of automation for improved control system functioning and safety. Process Saf. Prog. 16(3), 126–131 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Flin, R., O’Connor, P., Mearns, K.: Crew resource management: improving safety in high reliability industries team performance management, vol. 8, pp. 68–78 (2002). ISSN 1352-7592Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tardan, V., Bourgeon, L., Darses, F.: How do team leaders communicate to develop situation awareness? In: An Exploratory Study in a Nuclear Submarine Simulator. ECCE 2016, 05–08 September 2016, Nottingham, United Kingdom (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    MacMillan, J., Paley, M., Entin, E.B., Entin, E.E.: Questionnaires for distributed assessment of team mutual awareness. In: Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods, 51-151-9 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boring, U., Lew, K., Rice, P., Spielman, S.: Analog, Digital, or Enhanced Human-System Interfaces? Results of an Operator-in-the-Loop Study on Main Control Room Modernization for a Nuclear Power Plant. Department of Energy. INL/EXT-17-43188, September 2017Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ulrich, T., Werner, S., Lew, R., Boring, R.: COSSplay: validating a computerized operator support system using a microworld simulator. In: International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, Cham (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature (outside the USA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Idaho National LaboratoryIdaho FallsUSA

Personalised recommendations