Team Situation Awareness takes the concept of SA and applies them to each member of a team to understand the degree to which team members are aware of the situation and the requirements of themselves in order to complete a common goal. All team members need to be aware of their responsibilities and knowledge among members in order to successfully accomplish a common goal.

For instance, team members need to be aware of the complimentary and shared knowledge they each have that contributes to their overall understanding of the situation. Complimentary knowledge is the unique knowledge that team members have that does not overlap, while shared knowledge is knowledge that team members have that is the same (Cooke and Gorman, 2005). Both are important to have, as it contributes to understanding the goal; but for teams to work effectively, they need to understand what complimentary and shared knowledge they possess.

The same methods proposed for individual Situation Awareness can be used to measure Team Situation Awareness, however some are better suited for understanding how teams work than others.

Below is an example Team SA method in action:

• Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique

Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique

Typically this method is used as a freezing technique during simulated tasks in order to pause an activity and understand user situation awareness at a certain point in the process. However, it can also be used to inform real-time probes for measuring SA. This is an effective method for understanding individual SA, as well as team SA.

From the GDTA, I was able to develop queries to address each level of SA. Level 1 is focused on understanding individual perceptions of the situation. In this case, questions about the score, time left on the clock, where their teammate was on the field, and where their opponents were on the field we asked. Level 2 goes a step further and inquires about comprehension of the situation. These included queries about if they should challenge or defend the ball and what position they should be in according to the situation. Lastly, Level 3 extends out to project a future situation based on the perception and comprehension of the current situation. I asked about if they expected their opponent to challenge the ball, and if they expect their teammate to challenge or take a shot on goal.

By asking these questions in real-time to both team members I was able to more easily identify their shared and complimentary knowledge. For the Level 1 questions, I was also able to get a quick baseline of their SA in general.

Things to remember:

• Since these probes are being asked in real-time while the participants are actively completing the task, it can interfere with their cognitive processes. This could be especially difficult to use for tasks that require teammates communicate verbally with each other, because they would then need to interrupt that workflow to respond to the probes.

• Have a good understanding of the task beforehand to be able to more adequately prepare SAGAT-like probes for real-time use.

Pros:

• It allows you to assess SA while team members are completing a task in a more real environment, rather than retrospectively asking questions or pausing the workflow entirely.

• You can collect feedback from the entire team (size permitting) to see the shared and complimentary knowledge more actively working.

Cons:

• The number of probes implemented is limited to the length in time of the task itself. Longer tasks allow for more time to probe, whereas shorter tasks do not have this same affordance.

• Real-time probes still interfere with cognitive processes and may demand more effort from individuals, especially those with less expertise with a particular task.

References:

1. Breton, R. and Rousseau, R. (2003). The Direct Measurements. Situation Awareness: A Review of the Concept and its Measurement. (pp. 41-45). DREV TR- 2001-220 Defense Research Establishment Valcartier.

2. Cooke, N.J., and Gorman, J. C. (2006). Assessment of Team Cognition. International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors.

3. Endsley, M.R. (1987). SAGAT: A methodology for the measurement of situation awareness (NORDOC 87-83). Hawthorne, CA. Northrop.

4. Endsley, M.R. (1988) Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). In Proceedings of the National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAECON). (pp.789-795). New York:IEEE.

5. Wright, M. C., Taekman, J. M., & Endsley, M. R. (2004). Objective measures of situation awareness in a simulated medical environment. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 13(suppl 1), i65-i71. 10.1136/qshc.2004.009951