Rapid Decision Making on the Fire Ground

Klein, Gary; Calderwood, Roberta; Clinton-Cirocco, Anne

doi:10.21236/ada199492

Cited by 109 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

134

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Then, a number of researchers presented models showing how decision makers could use experience to handle operational contexts. Klein, Calderwood, & Clinton-Cirocco, 1986) reported on fireground commanders and tank platoon leaders and design engineers. Noble, Boehm-Davis, and Grosz (1986) reported on Naval command-and-control personnel.…”

Section: A Brief History Of Ndmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Klein, Calderwood, and Clinton-Cirocco (1986) tried to find out how fireground commanders made decisions about how to deploy their crew members during the most difficult urban fires they had faced, but the commanders insisted that they never tried to figure out whether one option was better than another. For researchers trained to expect that decision making necessarily involved comparison between options, this was totally unexpected.…”

Section: How People Make Decisions In Naturalistic Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Naturalistic Decision Making: Implications for Design

Klein¹

1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden tor thu collection of information n eitimated to average I hour oer reiponve. including the time tor reviewing imtructiom. vearching einting date tourcev gathering end maintaining the data needed, end completing end reviewing the collection of information Send commenti regarding thu burden eitimateor any other atpectof thit collection ot information, including suggestion, for reducing this burden, to watnington Headquarters Services. Directorate for information Operations and Reborn. 1215 Jefferson Davit Highway. Suite 120a. Arlington. VA 22202-4302. and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork P-eduaion Protect (070*-OtM). Washington. DC 20501. AGENCY USE ONLY (leave blink)2. REPORT DATE April 1993 REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVEREDState-of-the-Art Report TITLE AND SUBTITLENaturalistic Decision Making: Implications for Design AUTHOR(S)Gary Klein, Ph.D. S. FUNDING NUMBERS DLA900-88-0393 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND AOORESS(ES)University Recent years have witnessed strong progress in understanding how people make decisions in operational settings.The emerging field of Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM) is at a point to afford system developers (including design engineers, human factors engineers, ergonomics specialists) different tools and methods for designing interfaces/systems that will better support decision making in those settings.Decision requirements can be identified from the early conceptual design phase through redesign.The NDM framework attempts to describe the way in which people handle difficult conditions within the context of the overall setting or task.This SOAR describes various decision strategies used by individuals and teams to assess a situation, diagnose a problem, and select a course of action.The impact of stress upon these strategies is also considered.To help understand what people are thinking as they perform difficult tasks, the procedures for conducting Cognitive Task Analyses to examine design requirements are also examined. SUBJECT TERMS PURPOSE:To describe the current state of knowledge about the way people make decisions in operational settings. This SOAR is written for system developers, including design engineers, human factors engineers, ergonomics specialists, and others who try to design systems, subsystems, and interfaces that will support better decision making.The problem addressed by this SOAR is that system developers usually aren't given details about how the people operating the system will use it to make difficult judgments and decisions. The SOAR explains how to obtain the decision requirements, and how to incorporate them into the design process. The SOAR also describes tools for identifying and using decision requirements. The SOAR is intended to show developers how to use decision requirements tools and methods to clarify system features and to design system interfaces that are easier to use at critical times. BOUNDS: This SOAR does NOT provide a detailed review of the decision-making literature of the past 35 years, since tha...

show abstract

Section: A Brief History Of Ndmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How People Make Decisions In Naturalistic Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Naturalistic Decision Making: Implications for Design

Klein¹

1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several years ago, Klein, Calderwood, and Clinton-Cirocco (1986) adapted the method to study decision strategies of fireground commanders. This Critical Decision method (CDM) focuses on nonroutine cases and applies a set of question probes to elicit the domain experts' decision strategies, perceptual discriminations, pattern recognition, and so forth.…”

Section: Critical Decision Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying Knowledge Engineering to Training and Technology Transfer

Klein

Crandall

1990

Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge engineering" refers to the process of getting rules out of the heads of experts and into expert systems. of knowledge as a valued resource, analogous to petroleum, this suggests four aspects of knowledge engineering: (a) locating sources of expertise in organizations; (b) assaying the cost/benefits of engineering the expertise; (c) acquiring the knowledge; and (d) codifying the knowledge. In this paper we discuss knowledge engineering strategies and applications beyond expert systems.A broader field include a variety of "low technology" applications. If we think CAPTURING EXPERT1 SE

show abstract

“…29 If the knowledge-elicitation procedure provides proper scaffolding, experts can verbalize their tacit knowledge and express concepts that they had never explicitly expressed before, including information about their procedures and strategies. 30 In other words, verbalizability doesn't seem to be an unavoidable problem in knowledge-elicitation practice. Overall, the findings might be more in line with the psychological notion of inert knowledge: knowledge that's accessed only in particular contexts and that might go unexpressed unless the right prompts or cues are provided.…”

Section: Challenge 1: Finding the Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%