کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
1096178 | 1487449 | 2011 | 11 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |

This study compared two theoretical approaches to Situation Awareness (SA): the psychological school of thought and the systems ergonomics school of thought, by assessing measurement of team SA within these frameworks. Two teams were assigned and organised into either a traditional Hierarchy or a Peer-to-Peer organisational structure in a single case study design. Measures derived from the psychological and systems ergonomics perspectives were applied to assess their sensitivity for assessing team SA. No statistically significant differences were found between the two teams when measures originating in the psychological tradition were considered: differences were found, however, for measures originating in the systems ergonomics tradition. Literature concerned with team SA reveals a lack of consensus with regards to explaining the nature of the phenomenon as well as its measurement. This paper argues for a debate in the field to clarify what constitutes appropriate measurement techniques for team SA and suggests that these are taken from the systems ergonomics tradition, as suggested by the present studies findings.Relevance to industryTeams are a major feature of most industrial applications of work, and maintaining good situation awareness is important to successful performance. A method for examining the situation awareness of teams is proposed and compared with the individual models. Analysing the team as a functional unit of situation awareness is presented for future work.
► The study assessed measurement of team SA from the perspectives of Shared SA and Distributed SA.
► No statistically significant results were found for Shared SA.
► Differences between the two groups were found for measures assessing Distributed SA.
► Paper argues for a debate in the field to clarify appropriate measurement techniques for team SA.
Journal: International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics - Volume 41, Issue 6, November 2011, Pages 677–687