Gains and Brittleness in Joint Attention, Awareness and Sensemaking

Connecting Attention, Awareness and Sensemaking

These concepts are connected to a vast scientific literature that we here attempt to simplify for the making of a few key points.

The IMPETUS solution provides information to the SOC and other from data collected from the real events. In our perspective, this implies a distinction between the crises-as-event and the crises-as-process, in which the IMPETUS solution is an intermediary.

At a very basic level, the crises-as-process is a about attention, the operators' ability to attend to the information space without suffering overload or congestion.

The next issue is the broadly used term situational awareness. [Endsley 1995] defines situation awareness as “the perception of elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future."

Open

Model for understanding IMPETUS leverage

In our crises-as-process SOC context, the perception is very much based on information based on data from IT tools. This applies for the individual SOC operator, rendering the possibility open that different operators may perceive differently, as well as comprehend and project differently, if they are not properly coordinated.

Sensemaking is a perspective that highlights that perception, comprehension and projection are not neither linearly nor unidirectional connected. Sensemaking is not a deterministic, but a complex process influenced by cues and overarching search for meaning and comprehension. While we habitually think that what we see is what we believe, sensemaking ultimately implies that “what we believe is what we see”. This is urgent to keep in mind when a complex and surprising crises-as-event is comprehended in the crises-as-process, involving a diversity of operators under strain. In extreme uncertainty, what is believed (to be seen) might have to be instantly created out of very few cues.

The brittleness of joint understanding and awareness

Situational awareness (SA) thus comprises individual operator's understanding of what is going on, but is also an aggregate of individual understandings working together. A diversity of individual SAs can be a source for a more dynamic, adaptable, and functional joint SA in dealing with complex situations. In practice, any degree of joint SA is always a matter of negotiation and compromise, and the result of this may have different implications.

Any individual SA can be influenced by errors, such as failing to understand critical signals relating to a process being monitored, inadequate interpretation of information, insufficient understanding of responsibilities, and inadequate communication within teams [Johnsen et al. 2020]. Within the aviation sector, it has been observed that use of technology and automation leads to reduced situational awareness [Endsley 1996, Endsley 2015]. This is linked to the fact that humans who are monitoring work processes where they are not actively involved (out-of-the-loop) may become less attentive.

Upholding a functional joint SA is therefore a big issue, entangled in tiny differences that may escape attention. If oral, written or other communicative acts and deliberations needed to negotiate and align individual SAs are neglected or overrun, a joint forgetfulness and ignorance of important anomalies, weak signals and warnings may lead to an aligned, but dysfunctional joint SA.

The IMPETUS solution conveys the potential of improving both individual and joint SA, by providing more information and assistance in decision support. However, end users need to be aware of the risks pertaining to operators becoming "out-of-the-loop", potential failure to maintain attention levels, and the potential joint ignorance and forgetfulness driven by ignoring the small things of communication. The new and extended information space and information pathways might also affect the negotiations of (joint) awareness in dysfunctional manners. e.g., when instant supply of new and fresh information may appear to provide or offer instant understanding that fill information voids or justifies default operational actions.

It is therefore necessary to acknowledge the crucial role of the apparently “redundant” work necessary to unite and reconcile incompatible assumptions and procedures. This raises a challenge, as this type of work is characterised by the fact that it apparently solves inconsistencies by packing up compromises that "get the job done", which solves the situation locally and temporarily so that one can move on. Such "closure" is about creating unity, but this unity can also be about ignoring something crucial just because it is hard to resolve [Grøtan, 2020].