Moin, this is an important question, given the rapid growth in technology. As a retired Army Intelligence officer, I would agree that one's own natural senses are probably the best tools for making an on scene initial assessment. However, technology can be extremely useful for deeper analysis and the sharing and rapid correlation of additional data during on-going tactical operations.
Moin Rahman
Shared publicly -First Responder Tactical Situation Awareness on Mission Ground: Is Technology a boon or bane?
Technology companies promote their solutions -- heads-up displays, heads-down data devices, wearable computing solutions, etc. -- claiming that they augment or enhance the situation awareness (SA) of the dismounted first responder even though s/he is cognitively consumed & engaged on the mission ground (e.g., firefighting or involved in a fire fight). On the contrary, a human factors scientist who has studied this problem will make the audacious claim that the first and best means to acquire SA on the mission ground (aka, "fog of war" in military-speak) are through one's own, natural senses (sights, smells, sounds in the immediate vicinity) and perceptual mechanisms in the brain, and the insight & intuitions thus gleaned-- even though, their range and capabilities might be limiting when compared to that of technology.
As appealing as it may sound to kit-up a firefighter with a Google Glass or a SWAT Operator with a wrist-mounted data device (Apple's iWatch?), it is possible that they may actually diminish SA instead of enhancing it.
Of course, there are solutions to this. The human factor proponents should not be luddites and reject technology outright, nor should a technologist, peddle technology for technology's sake.
I am interested in hearing your thoughts and comments, from whatever vantage point you may have: as a first responder, human factors practitioner, technologist, or just an observer...
Technology companies promote their solutions -- heads-up displays, heads-down data devices, wearable computing solutions, etc. -- claiming that they augment or enhance the situation awareness (SA) of the dismounted first responder even though s/he is cognitively consumed & engaged on the mission ground (e.g., firefighting or involved in a fire fight). On the contrary, a human factors scientist who has studied this problem will make the audacious claim that the first and best means to acquire SA on the mission ground (aka, "fog of war" in military-speak) are through one's own, natural senses (sights, smells, sounds in the immediate vicinity) and perceptual mechanisms in the brain, and the insight & intuitions thus gleaned-- even though, their range and capabilities might be limiting when compared to that of technology.
As appealing as it may sound to kit-up a firefighter with a Google Glass or a SWAT Operator with a wrist-mounted data device (Apple's iWatch?), it is possible that they may actually diminish SA instead of enhancing it.
Of course, there are solutions to this. The human factor proponents should not be luddites and reject technology outright, nor should a technologist, peddle technology for technology's sake.
I am interested in hearing your thoughts and comments, from whatever vantage point you may have: as a first responder, human factors practitioner, technologist, or just an observer...
1
3 comments
I think that would depend on the specific features of these technologies. This is where the testing of the devices come into play.
Brent Paddack
+
1
2
1
2
1
Great question and discussion, but something about this doesn't sit right in my mind. There's been no lack of innovation in this space! There are so many gadgets and tech machinery to give SA to lifesupport, logistical inventory, C4ISR, etc... and it all looks incredibly "sexy" during tech show demonstrations...
But in reality, most of the technology is cumbersome and only works for a fraction of the use cases the end user desires. There's always a giant database that's EMPTY of the information needed to support the device. There's always network accredidation that limit features. There's always infrastructure limitations that render the service useless (trying getting internet service in a rural Afghan village.
Also, company tend to overdo innovation--allowing requirements and design creep to affect the overall deliverable. Soldiers said they wanted a wiki capability that allows them to build and share dossiers on key leaders they meet. They got an intelligence database that interpolates, extracts, rejects, and correlates data and self-creates a wiki page based on the latest cloud technology. Totally cool... Totally worthless when they're working with data that has to be transferred via cd-rom because their wireless adapters and thumbdrive ports are deactivated by command policy.
So, taking a look at a reasonable contribution to assist--that can be actioned right now and doesn't require the implementation of new infrastructure or data base systems... or to grow a network in order to make it more useful... is prudent.
But in reality, most of the technology is cumbersome and only works for a fraction of the use cases the end user desires. There's always a giant database that's EMPTY of the information needed to support the device. There's always network accredidation that limit features. There's always infrastructure limitations that render the service useless (trying getting internet service in a rural Afghan village.
Also, company tend to overdo innovation--allowing requirements and design creep to affect the overall deliverable. Soldiers said they wanted a wiki capability that allows them to build and share dossiers on key leaders they meet. They got an intelligence database that interpolates, extracts, rejects, and correlates data and self-creates a wiki page based on the latest cloud technology. Totally cool... Totally worthless when they're working with data that has to be transferred via cd-rom because their wireless adapters and thumbdrive ports are deactivated by command policy.
So, taking a look at a reasonable contribution to assist--that can be actioned right now and doesn't require the implementation of new infrastructure or data base systems... or to grow a network in order to make it more useful... is prudent.
Add a comment...