Designing for military pararescue: Naturalistic decision‐making perspective, methods, and frameworks

Militello, Laura G.; Sushereba, Christen; Branlat, Matthieu; Bean, Robert; Finomore, Victor

doi:10.1111/joop.12114

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Critical incidents are extreme environments wherein individuals and teams must make high-consequence decisions, whilst operating under dynamic and uncertain conditions (Militello, Sushreba, Branlat, Bean, & Finomore, 2015). They are unpredictable and include severe risk and threat (Orasanu & Lieberman, 2011), are characterized by missing and conflicting information (Bharosa, Lee, & Janssen, 2010), and involve extreme time pressure (Chen, Sharman, Rao, & Upadhyaya, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi‐agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack

Power

Alison

2016

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When operating in multiteam settings, it is important that goals are cohesive between team members, especially in high‐stakes, risky, and uncertain environments. This study explored goal consistency during a multiteam emergency response simulation. A total of n = 50 commanders from the UK Police Services, Fire and Rescue Services, and Ambulance Services took part in a simulated terrorism exercise, who were split into n = 13 teams. Each team responded to the same simulated terrorist event, which was based on a ‘Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attack’ (MTFA) at a city centre train station. Data were collected using electronically time‐stamped ‘decision logs’ and post‐incident questionnaires that measured team members’ self‐reported goals. Goals that were ‘attack’ focussed (e.g., ‘treat patients’) were coded as ‘approach’ (i.e., focussed on achieving positive outcomes) and goals that were ‘defence’ focussed (e.g., protect emergency responders) were coded as ‘avoid’ (i.e., focussed on avoiding negative outcomes). It emerged that different agencies prioritized different goal types; Fire commanders initially prioritized avoid goals but then increased approach orientations, Ambulance commanders were consistently approach oriented, and Police commanders showed goal conflict (tensions between adopting approach and avoid goals). Despite goal differences, participants rated that their interagency goals were consistent in a post‐scenario questionnaire, suggesting that commanders were unaware of the nuanced differences between their agency‐specific objectives. At the multiteam level, teams who predominantly held attack/approach goals were significantly faster at decision logging early in the incident, yet defend/avoid teams were faster at decision logging later into the incident. Implications for multiteam coordination are discussed. Practitioner points The ‘save life’ goal in multiteam emergency response settings is vague and open to interpretation. This can impede coordination when agencies assume that they are working towards the same ‘save life’ goal, but are actually focussed on different and role‐specific objectives with regard to how they will achieve it. A joint decision model that helps to clarify agency‐specific tactical priorities may be more useful in multiteam contexts than one that uses ambiguous and abstract (i.e., ‘save life’) interagency goals. A focus on achieving positive outcomes (attack/approach goal; e.g., ‘treat patients’) can speed up decision‐making during the early stages of an incident, but when the situation becomes more complex and dynamic, then a focus on avoiding negative outcomes (defend/avoid goal; e.g., protect emergency responders from harm) might lead to faster action. When responding to complex emergencies, practitioners should focus on satisficing to achieve ‘least‐worst’ outcomes rather trying to maximize gains.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi‐agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack

Power

Alison

2016

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Empirical studies demonstrate that workers in sociotechnical systems adapt not just their individual behaviours, or actions, but also their collective structures, or relationships, in response to evolving work demands (Naikar and Brady 2019;Naikar and Elix 2016b). Such adaptations have been observed in a variety of domains, including emergency management (e.g., Bigley and Roberts 2001;Lundberg and Johansson 2015;Lundberg and Rankin 2014), military (e.g., Militello et al 2015;Rochlin et al 1987), and healthcare (e.g., Barth et al 2015;Bogdanovic et al 2015).…”

Section: Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing for self-organisation in sociotechnical systems: resilience engineering, cognitive work analysis, and the diagram of work organisation possibilities

Naikar

Elix

2019

Cogn Tech Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In designing sociotechnical systems, accounting for the phenomenon of self-organisation is critical. Empirical studies show that workers in these systems adapt not just their individual behaviours, but also their collective structures to deal with complex work environments. The concept of self-organisation can explain how such adaptations can be achieved spontaneously, continuously, and relatively seamlessly, and why this phenomenon is important for dealing with instability, uncertainty, and unpredictability in the task demands. However, existing design approaches such as resilience engineering and cognitive work analysis are limited in their capacity to design for self-organisation. This paper demonstrates that the diagram of work organisation possibilities, a recent addition to cognitive work analysis, provides a sound theoretical basis for designing for self-organisation. That is, it shows how essential components of the diagram are aligned with the concept of self-organisation and are well-grounded in empirical observations of adaptation in a variety of sociotechnical systems, specifically emergency management, military, and healthcare systems. Consequently, designs based on this diagram should have the potential to facilitate the emergence of new spatial, temporal, and functional organisational structures from the flexible actions of individual, interacting actors, thereby enhancing a system's capacity for dealing with a dynamic, ambiguous work environment. Future research should focus on validating these ideas and demonstrating their value in industrial settings.

show abstract

“…Even small changes in context may require adaptation (Vicente, 1999 ), and it is not possible to formulate an algorithm, plan, or procedure for every single complication (Hoffman and Woods, 2011 ), even if it were safe to do so (Dekker, 2003 ). Thus everyday work requires ongoing local adjustments or improvisations to accommodate the inevitable flux that arises in the system (Bigley and Roberts, 2001 ; Rankin et al, 2014 ; Bogdanovic et al, 2015 ; Militello et al, 2015 ).…”

Section: Designing For Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aside from placing, quite unnecessarily and unfairly, an increased burden on workers who are already working under very demanding conditions, this situation could lead or contribute to unsafe or unproductive outcomes. Instead, workers should be provided with systematic support through the system design, including the design of technology, training, and procedures, to help them in adapting seamlessly and successfully to the unexpected and changing demands of their jobs (Rasmussen, 1986 ; Rasmussen et al, 1994 ; Vicente, 1999 ; Dekker, 2003 ; Eason, 2014 ; Rankin et al, 2014 ; Militello et al, 2015 ).…”

Section: Designing For Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated System Design: Promoting the Capacity of Sociotechnical Systems for Adaptation through Extensions of Cognitive Work Analysis

Naikar

Elix

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes an approach for integrated system design, which has the intent of facilitating high levels of effectiveness in sociotechnical systems by promoting their capacity for adaptation. Building on earlier ideas and empirical observations, this approach recognizes that to create adaptive systems it is necessary to integrate the design of all of the system elements, including the interfaces, teams, training, and automation, such that workers are supported in adapting their behavior as well as their structure, or organization, in a coherent manner. Current approaches for work analysis and design are limited in regard to this fundamental objective, especially in cases when workers are confronted with unforeseen events. A suitable starting point is offered by cognitive work analysis (CWA), but while this framework can support actors in adapting their behavior, it does not necessarily accommodate adaptations in their structure. Moreover, associated design approaches generally focus on individual system elements, and those that consider multiple elements appear limited in their ability to facilitate integration, especially in the manner intended here. The proposed approach puts forward the set of possibilities for work organization in a system as the central mechanism for binding the design of its various elements, so that actors can adapt their structure as well as their behavior—in a unified fashion—to handle both familiar and novel conditions. Accordingly, this paper demonstrates how the set of possibilities for work organization in a system may be demarcated independently of the situation, through extensions of CWA, and how it may be utilized in design. This lynchpin, conceptualized in the form of a diagram of work organization possibilities (WOP), is important for preserving a system's inherent capacity for adaptation. Future research should focus on validating these concepts and establishing the feasibility of implementing them in industrial contexts.

show abstract

Designing for military pararescue: Naturalistic decision‐making perspective, methods, and frameworks

Cited by 18 publications

References 43 publications

Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi‐agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack

Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi‐agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack

Designing for self-organisation in sociotechnical systems: resilience engineering, cognitive work analysis, and the diagram of work organisation possibilities

Integrated System Design: Promoting the Capacity of Sociotechnical Systems for Adaptation through Extensions of Cognitive Work Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About